Search Members

[mstrainjr]

Well, I’m in over my head.  I just meant to make a simple post, but now I’m answering too many questions at once and I really want to move on with my life.  This is an interesting topic and I have a lot to say on it, but I seriously have other things to do.  I’ll try to answer later on, so be patient.

[mstrainjr]

@kerwin

I know that, and I’m glad you either took the time to look it up, or possibly you already knew it.  Now, my point is this: what makes you right and me wrong?  Or what makes me right and you wrong?  The way it’s written, it could be either way.  Therefore, it’s probably not logical to assume that you’re right when you give your interpretation of what the Word is.  Unfortunately, it’s not clear.  This is an example of why the best Biblical scholars have been arguing over things like this for centuries.  Each one wants to be right, and they’ll argue their side instead of accepting that the passage can have multiple interpretations to the modern reader.

[mstrainjr]

@NickHassan

You say that we must treat the Bible with the greatest respect, yet you don’t tell me where I can find anything that you’re telling me within it.  You’re just saying things.  You say “No men are divine but all are vessels in which The divine can live and work”, so show me where it says that in the Bible.  Back up what you’re saying with references.  I think you’re mixing another religious book into this, and that has no place when speaking strictly about what the Bible says.

[mstrainjr]

oops. double post

[mstrainjr]

@kerwin

Except the next few verses, even in the Greek, refer to the Word of verse 1 as “he” and “him”.  So it seems that John had a person in mind.

[mstrainjr]

@NickHassan

Why the 3 posts?  You asked several complicated questions at one time, as if I should spend my whole night researching and answering all your questions.  Therefore, I will just give you quick answers.

 

As far as Jesus’s pre-existence, the Bible is a bit fuzzy on this.  The synoptic  gospels seem to indicate that Jesus had a fairly normal life up until the time that God spoke to him at his baptism and said “You are my son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased” (although John makes no mention of this and he was the only gospel writer to actually be there).  We know that as a child, he had a fervor for the Scriptures and the teachers were amazed at his wisdom.  But Paul’s letters make Jesus out to be more than the gospels ever cared to tell us.  John is the only gospel writer (as far as I know) to say that Jesus existed with God in the beginning (John 1:1), and Paul is quite clear in his language that Jesus was in Heaven with God before he came to earth.  His writings say multiple times that all things were created by God through Jesus.

You seem to be pointing out a gnostic idea, that Jesus was sort of like two beings in one, a spiritual self trapped inside a physical vessel.  When I speak, I do so strictly from the Bible.  I don’t speak in theory as if it’s truth.

To answer your question about the prophets, look in Luke 20:9-19.  Here we see a parable about how God sent prophets to Israel over and over, yet each time Israel rejected them.  God then sent his son, thinking they would listen to him; but instead they killed him.  Jesus then says that because they reject the son, God will destroy Israel and set up others in their place.  This indicates that Jesus is much more than just a prophet; he is the son of God.  That was his claim, and that’s what his followers thought of him.

But David, being the Messiah of his time, was also referred to as being the son of God.  But some Christians would rather think those passages are talking about Jesus even though David himself was not a prophet.  If he were a prophet, why would he need Nathan to be his link to God?  Heck, in Psalm 45, the Hebrew refers to David as Elohim, and we know it’s talking about David because it describes about his earthly court and his queen.  Adam – David – Jesus: these three men are called sons of God, and all three were considered divine to some extent in their lives.

I think the answers to your questions can be found in the second chapter of Acts where Peter gives the full unadulterated gospel message to a crowd while under the influence of the holy spirit.  Pay very close attention to the things he says.  None of it indicates that Jesus was a mere prophet or equal to David.

[mstrainjr]

Well yes, Jesus was anointed by God, just as David was anointed as king over Israel.  In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word MShYKh (Messiah) was applied to King David.  And of course KrISTOS (Christ) is the Greek word that means the same thing.  So Jesus is Christ just as David was Christ.

 

Of course there are differences between the two.  For example, Jesus was a pre-existing spiritual being with God in the beginning who became manifest in the flesh on Earth.  While David was a flawed human Christ who ruled as king, Jesus is the perfect Christ who rules as king, high priest, prophet, redeemer, mediator, and so on.

[mstrainjr]

Oh, and as a side note:

 

It says that Jesus was in the form of God.  Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and Genesis 1:27 says that man (especially Adam) was created in his image.  In I Corinthians 15, Paul refers to Jesus as “the second Adam”.  I think Jesus is as much a part of God as Adam was.

[mstrainjr]

“He existed in the form of God, emptied himself, came in the flesh….”

Some interesting things I discovered while looking at that passage in Philippians 2 over the years:

1. In verse 6, the Greek reads EN MORFEy ThEOU; and in verse 7 we see MORFEyN DOUDOU LABOhN.  That part in verse 7 is often translated, “taking the form of a slave”, but since there’s no Greek article to represent “the” and the grammar doesn’t indicate it, it should be “taking a slave’s form.”  Now, going back to verse 6, that part is often translated, “in the form of God”.  There’s two problems with this.  Once again, there’s no article for MORFEy (“form”).  Also, there’s no article for ThEOU (god) showing that it’s referring to THE God.  This being said, it appears that this should be “a god’s form”.  Not convinced?  Why is it that we translate “in the form of God” but not “the form of Slave”?  It’s similar construction in the Greek, so my opinion is that we should either capitalize “slave” as I did, or more sensibly, the phrase in verse 6 should have “a god” instead of “God”.  But let’s take this further.  ThEOS is more correctly translated as “deity”, rather than “god”.  So then verse 6, more accurately translated, should say “in deity’s form…”  What I’m saying is that this part does not necessarily mean that Jesus was in the form of God Almighty.
2. Let’s look at the next word in verse 6: EN MORFEy ThEOU hUPARKhOhN.  This is normally translated as “being in the form of God.”  The problem with this is that hUPARKhOhN doesn’t exactly mean “being”.  There’s already a Greek word that means “being” and that’s OhN, the present participle of EIMI (“am”).  hUPARKhOhn is the present participle of hUPARKhOh, which is a verb made of two other words: hUPO – “under”; and ARKhOMAI, which refers to precedence, as in being the first, the beginning, or highest rank.  So then hUPARKhOh speaks of existing as a subordinate, being under a higher rank or something of importance; or even beginning under.  It could refer to the continuance of a pre-existing condition.  This word is used in Acts 27:21 where it suggests that Paul and those with him were being under the effects of a fast.  In Luke 11:13, it suggests being under the influence of evil, not simply “being evil”.  Interestingly, it can also carry a meaning of property, or perhaps more accurately belonging.

So ultimately what I’m saying is that this phrase does not mean to say that Jesus was and is God.

[mstrainjr]

It looks like there isn’t much of a debate here.  Kinda disappointed.  So far, we all seem to be in agreement that Jesus was not Almighty God in the flesh, as much of mainstream “Christianity” teaches.

[mstrainjr]

By using the term “active living force”, I pretty much meant the same thing as you then said, but you said it better: the manifestation of God in his creation.

I do want to point out that the Greek words translated “holy spirit” are neuter.  This means that it’s not a “person” of some kind of trinity.  It isn’t quite an “it” either, since it is alive.  But hey, we won’t be able to define what God is and how he works.

[mstrainjr]

Nick and Kerwin,

Okay, so it seems to me that you’re both on the same page.

 

Yes GOD WAS IN CHRIST reconciling the world to Himself.

So Christ was not God.

God was not Christ.

That is what’s called the holy spirit, God’s active living force that is channeled through his servants.  Jesus used it to raise Lazarus, Elijah used it to raise the widow’s son, and Peter used it to raise Tabitha.  So the power that Jesus exhibited didn’t show him to be God.

 

Jesus does state he is in God. It is the idea of the unity of the Spirit. (John 17:21)

Yes, and he also prayed that his followers would be in him as he is in God so that we would be one together with God.  If one were to take this passage to mean that Jesus is God, then we have to consider then that Jesus is praying that we would be God as he is.  Obviously that’s not true.  Like you said, it’s a unity of Spirit.  Paul urged the church to be of one mind, one body, and one spirit; Jesus had such unity with God, but that did not make him God.  Again, it is the holy spirit that provides such unity.

 

At least, those are my thoughts.

[mstrainjr]

I apologize for taking so long to come here.  I keep myself quite busy throughout the day, and honestly I forgot about this until just now.

I would first like to point out that Jesus’ divinity is something that has been debated since before the Catholic Church had been established.  That being said, I doubt we would change too many minds here.  The thing about religious faith is that it’s so embedded into one’s sense of self that most people have a really hard time considering that certain teachings they’ve been raised with are wrong.  Who wants to admit that something so important to them may be little more than a deception?

Mark Twain once said, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Pride is perhaps the main reason for this.  No one wants to be wrong.  No one wants to feel like they’ve been lied to their whole lives.  So in the face of all evidence to the contrary, some people will continue to blatantly deny what is plainly before them.

I was raised in first the Lutheran and then the Baptist church, and I was a Baptist until around the age of 23.  One belief that both denominations had in common was that of Jesus being Almighty God in the flesh.  While the Lutheran church took this teaching for granted and never really discussed what was already quite accepted, the Baptist church had those Bible verses that it used to prove the doctrine.

And I believed it.  It’s what my parents believed, it’s what my friends at church believed, and I believed it too.

But then a wrench was thrown into the gears.  I had the blessing (or curse) of being homeschooled through high school, and instead of taking Spanish or French as a second language, I took the opportunity to study New Testament Greek.  I made hundreds of flash cards and really got into the lessons.  It was cool to me that I was starting to look beyond translation and see the text in the way it was originally written.

One Sunday morning, my preacher was talking about the word “blessed” in the Bible, as used in Matthew 5.  He explained to the congregation what the English word meant, and then he started talking about the meaning of the Greek word, markarios.  In short, as I sat there in my seat, I noticed that his definition of the word wasn’t quite correct, and he ended up basing most of his sermon around his made-up definition.  I looked around at peoples’ faces and I realized that everyone simply took him at his word; they didn’t know any better, so they were simply accepting what he said as fact.  The preacher would occasionally say something like, “The King James Version is the closest English translation to God’s Word!  Amen?” and then the congregation would in unison say “Amen!”.  But what did they really know about it?  Nothing!  That is what’s called mass hypnosis.

It really began to bother me that most church-going Christians know little to nothing about the original languages of the Bible.  And here’s the question I began to wonder: If Muslims are encouraged to read the Quran in its original language of Arabic, and the Jews are encouraged to read their Tanakh (the Old Testament) in Hebrew, why aren’t Christians encouraged by their pastors to study their New Testament in the original Greek?  Did church leaders have something to hide?

Now, it’s easy to find things to support your own views, so I decided to look at the Bible from an objective standpoint.  I thought the best way to do this was to look for all the Biblical evidence AGAINST what I believed, and I used several sources as a guide.  For the topic of Jesus’ divinity, I noticed that most verses used to “prove” that Jesus is God were taken out of context.  Also, I started to see a lot of biased translation.  While one type of grammatical phrase would be translated one way, it would be translated differently when Jesus was the subject of the sentence.

I determined early on that the KJV is one of the worst translations.  I dare to say it’s worse than the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, yes even more biased!  Yet so many preachers push this translation (or translations based off the same tradition) upon their congregations, convincing them that all other Bibles are of the devil or whatever.  This is something that really bothers me.  In fact, I find it kind of scary.

Back to my study into the topic of Jesus’ divinity….  As I continued to study, I could feel myself fighting back against the things I was discovering.  As I said before, these doctrines become so ingrained into your sense of who you are that it’s very difficult to admit the facts when they’re staring you in the face.  I struggled for a long time, and I felt my faith in general starting to fail.  If I had been wrong about this one thing, what else in my life was wrong?  How else had I been deceived?  There was a point where I became very distrustful of others because I didn’t know what to believe anymore.  But I pushed through it all and eventually came to the place where I could accept the things I was finding.  Within several years of study into this topic, I came to the undeniable conclusion that Jesus was not Almighty God in the flesh, and that those verses that seem to say such things are either taken out of context, mistranslated, added into the Bible, or simply misunderstood.

As someone who has studied the Greek of the New Testament over the course of nearly 15 years, I can say with absolute certainty that Jesus is not YHWH God.

This is just an introduction so you can know where I’m coming from.  I know it’s long, but it gets several things out of the way right up front.  I have bookmarked this page, and I look forward to presenting my arguments for this case.

Where faith does not equal truth, I always choose truth.

-M. Strain Jr.

[mstrainjr]

@t8,

I will gladly help you out.  It’s presently 11:20PM where I am, and I have work in the morning, but I will jump into this as soon as I can.  =)

[mstrainjr]

Cool, thanks! I just registered, but I have a lot of reading to do here before I jump in.

[mstrainjr]

I just finished a debate on whether Jesus is Almighty God. I took the stance that he is not. My arguments come straight from the Bible, especially the Greek text, as I don’t rely solely on English translations.

You can see the debate here:
http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-Does-NOT-say-that-Jesus-is-Almighty-God-in-the-flesh./1/

[Author]

Posts