Originally posted by Same Hakeem
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines
This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
John 20:28, My Lord and My God
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Same Hakeem View PostThe fact remains that Biblically Jesus cannot be GOD and be with God as per John 1:1-2.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostAre you trying to make Muslims look bad?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThey don't need any help with that.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostMy Muslim coworker is a decent fellow.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Same Hakeem View PostCalling a person
Nothing about a person named Jesus here .
The fact remains that Jesus CANNOT be God and be with God in John 1:1-2 because this requires two Gods.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostIn John 1:1 no person is mentioned but rather a thing, namely "the Word." What this verse is saying is as follows , the proper translation -- "In the beginning was the Torah, and the Torah was facing God, and the Torah was a divine thing."
Nothing about a person named Jesus here .
Comment
-
You should spend your time trying to defend Islam.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...215#post722215
Comment
-
John is using God in two different senses in John 1:1-2. When he writes "the Word was with God" in verse 1 he's using God as a name, or a title, for the Father. When he writes the Word was God he's using it to tell us what kind of nature the Word had. So he's saying that the Word has been with the Father from the very beginning, in eternity and that the Word was of the same divine nature as the Father.
The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that Jesus cannot be God and be with God in John 1:1-2 without requiring two Gods.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostJohn explicitly identifies the Word with Jesus in John 1:14 so your idiosyncratic interpretation doesn't work here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostThat's like saying the dust of the earth in Gen. 2:7 is "directly identified" with Adam. In John 1:14 "the Word made flesh" (i.e. the Word become a human being) is Jesus, "the Word" is NOT Jesus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostJohn 1:14 is saying the Word became (or was made) flesh, not "the Word made flesh". It's saying that the Word identified as divine being in John 1:1 became the human being known as Jesus. There's no need to force an awkward interpretation like you're trying to do unless you're trying to push some kind of unitarian theology that stands in direct opposition to the text itself.
The grammar (and context) of this verse discounts the Trinitarian interpretation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostJohn is using God in two different senses in John 1:1-2. When he writes "the Word was with God" in verse 1 he's using God as a name, or a title, for the Father. When he writes the Word was God he's using it to tell us what kind of nature the Word had. So he's saying that the Word has been with the Father from the very beginning, in eternity and that the Word was of the same divine nature as the Father.
The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that Jesus cannot be God and be with God in John 1:1-2 without requiring two Gods.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Unitarian101 View PostCorrect, "made flesh" (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) means "became a human being," σὰρξ is a synecdoche . So the verse is saying that "the Word became a human being," and this is the being who is called Jesus.
The grammar (and context) of this verse discounts the Trinitarian interpretation.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment