>>Yes, Christians refer to the Bible as the word. NO we do not mean it is the "Word" mentined in John. NO we do not worship the Bible! Get it through your head already.
If you did not "worship" the bible, you would not have any trouble noting that it is *NOT* a flawless document, nor does it even come close to all being the will of God. The fact you can't do these things suggests to me that you are still bible worshipping. Books are not "perfect".
>>And even if you do not beleoive that they are like this.. I am. and you aretlaking to me. So if anything, when I say something, and you say back that I don't really mean what I say, you are calling me a liar.
No, but I'm noting there is a difference between what you are saying "I don't bible worship" and what you insist upon, "it's all infallible" are diametrically aposed to one another. If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.
>>Is that what you are doing Michael? f not, then accept what I said above as what I said, and what I believe.
I hear what you are saying ZC, and I'm not trying to make you mad, but you are saying two things here which contradict one another. You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship. I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.
M>The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.
>>Seems to you?!? Who are you that I should base my salvation on anything you say?
Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.
>>You want to call it Bible worship.. fine do so, but you do so in error. I do think the Bible, in its original autograph of the authors, who were inspired by God, is without error of its original inspired citation from God. And, I do not worship the Bible. Those two statements may not make sense to youin your minds, but they are both true.
These two sentences together make up what's called an oxymoron. It's like saying blue is red. You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.
M>Why does John also call Jesus, God's SON?
>>Umm.. becasue He is God's (the Fasther) Son. Duh! I have answered this for you already many times.. why ask it again?
Try it this way then. Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?
M>He does not come the conclusion that Jesus is God, only that the "Word" is Jesus through the presense of the Holy Spirit which decended upon Jesus at baptism.
>>But john did not say this.. John said the Word becamre Flesh. So I ask, why does John not say this?
I can't ask him to find out. I can only look to Jesus for the best possible explanation on this subject. Fortunately he provides on in John 17. John was after all simply "interpreting" what Jesus was about after all, just like you and me.
>>Why does John say the Word became Flesh? Why doesn't John write it as you wish he would have.. that The word, manifestewd it self, or that the word, slowly changed a man into a messiah?
I don't know why. These are the metaphors he chose to use, and John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the
son of God, not God. I accept what John is saying, that the Holy Spirit was fully manifest in Jesus. I agree with him also that Jesus was the
son of God, and not God. You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.
M>Why do you portray it as infallible? How is that not simply idol worship?
>>It isn't idol worship becasue I do not worshpi it. Now, answer my question. When have I ever said that the bible is the Loving Word of God. You said I did.. show ne. If you don't, I assume you madew a statement about me that isn't true.
I'm not going back through months of posts now looking for the best example I can find here. It's pretty clear to everyone that you'd rather believe that genocide is God's will rather than to entertain the idea that Joshua was just a liar.
You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood. What can I say here? The bible is just a book is it not?
M>It's one thing to put your faith in the living "WORD" of God, the Holy Spirit, but it's quite another to suggest a human created thing is "infallible".
>>I do not claim thast it was only human ceated.. I also claim that God had a direct part in its creation.
A direct part how? Through the presense of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love. John agrees with me. Genocide is not a loving act. How do you explain this?
M>More threats? Were you tired tonight or what? You have spent days of my time trying to convince me some human written book is somehow a flawless work havent' you, or was that someone else?
>>I have said as mush.. I did not say it was alive! You have made a false claim about me. And yes it was a threat.. if you accus eme of something, back it up.
You've called it the "word" of God. The WORD as defined by the Bible is the Holy Spirit which manifest this creation. The bible is man's word.
M>Even the passage in question suggests the WORD existed before Jesus was born. What was it then?
>>Like you don't already know what I am oing to answer.. hehe. The WORD is the God the Son.
Well, I agree, and Jesus also seems to agree. He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.
M>It does suggest that Jesus is somehow so different from us as to be on some unattainable pedestal.
>>It and the Bile teaches that Jesus is different than us.
Sure, we are all unique.
>>HE is God,
Jesus *doesn't* say this however.
>>but the Biblke and the Trinity does ont teach that Jesus is unattainable, only that His Godhood is unattainable by us.
Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys. To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.
M>This is not what Jesus taught. He refered to himself as a man, and God as the source of all his strength and abilities. He also insisted that we too are capable of this union with God.
>>Yes, we are able to achive union with GOd, but that union does not make us Devine. It does not make us equal to Jesus.
You are jumping concepts here as I see it. Union with God is what Jesus claimed he had. He didn't say he was God in the first person. In fact none of you has produced a first person claim to the contrary in the whole of the gospels. "Divinity" is really more of an intangible. How can you measure that within Jesus directly in the absense of the Holy Spirit for instance? I have no idea how you'd begin to define that in terms unrelated the the Holy Spirit with him, but there is an element of Jesus the man here who allowed this to happen, in fact cooperated with it. This unique "soul" is indeed "divine" IMO too, but it is not "GOD" the "FATHER".
M>No, it's definitely not the party line, but it's the only "trinity" I believe in.
>>So, sence that sin';t the Trinty we are discussing, why bring it up? To show that I am almost right, but not quite? Good luck.
Actually, I think this is a *VERY* important topic for christianity. It gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about. We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source. I don't buy that concept.
>>After you get aroud to answering the questions I asked earlier, without answering them with more questions, tell me what you think about this:
What have I not answered you - repeatedly?
>>First, the Bible says that whoever denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is of the spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:1-2).
I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?
>>How does this relate to the Diety of Christ?
The statement related to Jesus being the Messiah come in the flesh. I certainly believe this.
You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.
>>JOhn wrote both John and I-III John. We can reasonably assume that he didn't contradict himself in thes writings.
Ok, but let's leave some room for honest research shall we? If it turns out that there is convincing evidence some of these writings are not his, then we should listen. I know of none at the moment.
>>John wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ."
And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things. Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?
>>Obviously, from the context, John is not simply saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, you must believe that He is the Word made flesh.
Indeed, and that Jesus is the Messiah. I believe these things, but I don't believe Jesus is God. He said he wasn't in fact. He called himself a man and God the only true God.
>>And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh.
Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.
>>It seems to me you beleive the "Word" translated from the Greek, is logos. signifying the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine, and that in the very beginning, Gods purpose, wisdom or revelation was proclaimed through His Word. This Word was 'with God' in that it emanated from Him; it 'was God' in that it represented Him to mankind. . ." You sound like a Christiandelphinian.
I never brought up the concept of Logos. That's only going to complicate the discussion. As to pinning labels on me, you know how I resent the idea of *ANY* label in the first place.
John said that Jesus would baptize by the Spirit, and this is what I believe Jesus does. The rest is just opinion.
>>The problem with this reasoning is not that the definition, in itself, is incorrect. For it can be said that the Word was indeed the wisdom and emanation from God. But that is not all it is saying. It is saying that the Word WAS God.
The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.
>>Jesus IS the Word. He isnt simply a manifestation of some divine attribute or quality.
He's as close to the source as the bible has to offer, on that we both agree. He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part, but he calls himself a man, and shows fear the night before his death. This is quite understandable for a man, this is less understandable if Jesus were God. What does God fear?
>>Also, what about the context? John 1:2-3 "The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Just as the sunlight creates all life on earth, it isn't the sun itself. This is the best analogy I can give you. Just as the Holy Spirit eminates from God, it does not define God.
>>The Word is who created all things. Of course, it is naturally understood that this does not include God Himself. But all that is made, has been made by the Word that became flesh.
The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born. The WORD is the creative force from which *ALL* things manifest, including, you, me and Jesus.
>>And, the Word is revered to as a person, not a quality which you seem to have imposed onto the text.
The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the
conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.
>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?
I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.
>>This is especially important since Jesus said that you are to worship God only . Yet, Jesus receives worship and never rebukes anyone for it.
I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.
>>If Jesus is not God, then why He not correct Thomas when He was called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God."
If Jesus is God, why doesn't he just say so? If Jesus is God, why does John call him the *SON* of God?
>>You want a verse in scripture that calls Jesus God? Here you go:
Hebrews 1:5-8 "For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom."
I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?
>>Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong?
Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.
>>The SON of God is Jesus.
And we are all sons and daughters of God.
>>The Father, who is God, is caling the Son woh is Jesus, God. Trippy, huh?
It's only trippy cause you won't accept that human beings put their opinions in the bible. Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired. You refuse to see any distinction, therefor you see "trippy". I don't see it that way.
>>Here are some things John represents Jesus as: giving eternal life (John 10:27); the bread of life (6:35,51 - an obvious allusion to the manna given by God out of heaven in 6:32-35); the way the truth and the life (14:6); the light of the world (8:12); being the 'I am" (8:5 . sharing the glory of God before creation (17:5; note that God shares His glory with no one, Isaiah 42: ; calling Jesus His own Father making Himself equal with God (John 5:1 ; receiving the same honor that you give to the Father (John 5:23); knowing all things (21:17 - something only God can do).
All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah. The breath of God however, is not God.
>>And in 18:5, in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus answers those who came to arrest Him with the statement, "I am", they fall back to ground.
Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet?
>>"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am' "
So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.
>>It is clear to me that John considered Jesus, to be God in the Flesh.
I'm not sure which John you are refering to here, whether you mean John the baptist now, or John the disciple. I think it's clear they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and filled with the presense of the Holy Spirit. The trinity doctrine however wasn't started till hundreds of years later.