Is Jesus God?

[LBSDBS]

seriously doubt that you’d accept any PROOF i.e. that your mind is firmly made up about the matter.

You’d be surprised, assuming you have it to offer.

I realize that you guys are a little unnerved by senseless arguments and hate against the Catholic church, but keep in mind that I am not one of them.

I was raised with the Catholic church and have been well schooled in it’s teachings. Even now, I am still somewhat of a fan of Fr. Corapi and Fulton Sheen. My departure from the Catholic church had nothing to do with the Catholic church individually and everything to do with religion as a whole.

I came to this forum to gather help and information on a book I am writing, which happens to be an Antichrist story that is neutral in religion, but has ALLOT of catholic stuff in it (like the 3 days of darkness prophecy for instance) and yet my only reason for actually spending social time with you guys unrelated to my mission is because I have found Catholics and Orthodox to be the only Christians out there who are actually friendly to reason and unafraid of both science and facts, therefor able to communicate on these grounds.

Furthermore, though you may not have noticed, I have defended Catholicism on these grounds more then once on this forum in my short time here.

However, I am also an objective individual. In other words, I think sort of like a patent searcher. I will do my very best to prove you wrong, but what I really want is to prove you right. In case you don’t know how this works, it’s called the process of elimination. Once you have exhausted all possible means to prove something wrong, you now have it narrowed down enough that proving it right, if in deed it is right, will be a piece of cake. It’s a very common practice by scientists and investigators, and criminal trials revolve around it.

When it comes to PROOF, there is nothing I like to see more. Maybe I came off wrong, but I thought I presented my statement as a challenge, not an accusation.

 

[MDK]

MartinR complete refusal to even acknowledge Holy scripture, in particular John Chapter 1, and numerous other passages, it cearly demonstrates that he is willfully blind.

I am quitting this thread because there is no attempt at sincerity on the part of the OP.

I do agree that there is not any attempt at sincerely finding the truth from that side.

May God bless you for honestly and sincerely seeking to follow God as He revealed Himself to us.

 

[mchale]

If you are going to try and work from Greek, I think it might be better if you actually understood Greek… or at least how inflected languages.

Ok here it is:

John 1:1 (Greek):

archē In the beginning g746
logos was the Word, g3056
logos and the Word g3056
theos was with God, g2316 Here we’re told theos means “was with God”
logos and the Word g3056
theos was God. g2316 Here we’re told theos means “was God”

“Theos” is used twice but the translators have chosen a different meaning for each time it is used. How can they do that? If I said “cat cat” would they translate that as “cat dog”?
It looks like the translators have made it read what they want it to read.
Maybe they were trying to fit in with what Constantine believed because that became the done thing and people just blindly followed. At first to avoid execution then later it became tradition.

Here is the greek transliterated into Latin Characters to make it easier to follow:

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.

As another poster (Ghosty) has pointed out, each time Theos is used, it has a different ending. Now I am no expert on Greek, but I do understand how inflected languages work. A difference in ending can not only change number or tense (if it is a verb) but it can also add a whole host of other meanings to the word. Certainly in latin (a language I have more familiarity with) if you took Deus (The nomitive for God in Latin… the equivalent of Theos) and changed it to Deum, depending on context, it could mean with God or to God or even from God (My latin is a little rusty, so forgive me if I am reading too much into this particular ending for God).

Theos can mean Christ or God’s representative so you could translate John 1:1 as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Christ and the Word was God’s representative.

Nope… Theos is definitely Greek for God. The Greek for Christ is Christos.

The word “theos” also means “likeness“ and is used in Eph 4:24

No, theos does not mean likeness… it might mean “like God” but it does not mean just likeness. In addition, when translating from other languages you need to be careful to remember that they don’t necessarily translate as cleanly as we might like them too.

Eph 4:24 You must display a new nature because you are a new person, created in God’s likeness–righteous, holy, and true.

and put g1746 ἐνδύωendyō
on the new g2537 καινόςkainos
self, * g444 ἄνθρωποςanthrōpos *
which in the likeness of God g2316 θεόςtheos *
has been created g2936 κτίζωktizō *
in righteousness g1343 δικαιοσύνηdikaiosynē *
and holiness g3742 ὁσιότηςhosiotēs *
of the truth. g225 ἀλήθειαalētheia

Jesus is like God and we should try and be like Jesus.

So you could also translate John 1:1 as

In the beginning was the Word, and the word was Christ and the word was like God.
Which is what you’d expect i.e. The son is like the father.

I found a discussion on this verse (John 1:1) some time ago on the net.
A Greek expert from some university was asked if this verse shows that Jesus is God.
He started by making it clear he was not at all religious so could give an unbiased opinion.
His conclusion was that there was not enough information in this short sentence to say one way or the other.

Well, I am certain that no Greek expert would agree with the reading you are suggesting. Before you start trying to translate to support your position, at least take a single course in Greek. Theos means god… (it doesn’t have to mean God with the capital G, but it does have to mean at least a god).

–
Bill

 

[Alindawyl]

When it comes to PROOF, there is nothing I like to see more. Maybe I came off wrong, but I thought I presented my statement as a challenge, not an accusation.

I can’t offer proof. All I can offer is evidence. Whether or not you find it to be evidence worthy of consideration is your choice.

The most reasoned evidence is that Tradition, the oral teaching of Jesus, is given to us by the same people who wrote down some of it as the books which comprise the New Testament. It reflects a series of beliefs (Real Presence, purgatory, veneration of saints and their relics, etc) which were common practice among Christians before 100AD. A good number of those beliefs were still accepted by Protestants at the time of the Reformation, only being rejected much later when personal interpretation of Scripture became more widespread and led to further fracturing of Christianity.

Every single denomination which has come about due to the Reformation is unable to claim any sort of consistent authority to back up their personal interpretation of the Word of God. Some skirt the issue by effectively stating no one teaches the fullness of Truth, which then prompts one to ask why their beliefs are worth considering if they are unwilling to stand up and claim to teach the fullness of what God has revealed to us. Some claim certain “essentials” matter and all else is open to debate, but they disagree on what those essentials are and never seem to voice them in more than extremely vague terms that are effectively meaningless due to that vagueness. Some claim to have the fullness of Truth but can’t reasonably explain why their point of view, which invariably contradicts one which was held by earlier Christians, should be given any consideration if it goes against what has consistently been taught before them.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, claims a historical basis for what she teaches by way of apostolic succession. That claim is then followed up with historical evidence to display those teachings in practice since the time of the early Christians. Protestants have thrown out apostolic succession and/or the oral teachings which comprise the Tradition taught by that apostolic succession, leaving them with only the written teachings. Every single one of them glosses over the fact that those written teachings which make up the Bible only exist because of the Tradition which they have rejected. The table of contents for Scripture comes from Tradition, after all, not Scripture.

I bow to the authority of the Church in interpreting the Word of God and accept what she teaches, which is that Jesus is both fully human AND fully God.

 

[Convert66]

Maybe they were trying to fit in with what Constantine believed because that became the done thing and people just blindly followed

Constantine was an Arian. He didn’t believe that Jesus is God either. He was only baptized upon his death bed, and even then I believe he was baptized by an Arian.

Thanks for playing . . .

 

[zach_dunn]

Ok here it is:

John 1:1 (Greek):

archē In the beginning g746
logos was the Word, g3056
logos and the Word g3056
theos was with God, g2316 Here we’re told theos means “was with God”
logos and the Word g3056
theos was God. g2316 Here we’re told theos means “was God”

“Theos” is used twice but the translators have chosen a different meaning for each time it is used. How can they do that? If I said “cat cat” would they translate that as “cat dog”?
It looks like the translators have made it read what they want it to read.
Maybe they were trying to fit in with what Constantine believed because that became the done thing and people just blindly followed. At first to avoid execution then later it became tradition.

Theos can mean Christ or God’s representative so you could translate John 1:1 as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Christ and the Word was God’s representative.

Sorry Martin, the verse does not read “ἀρχῇ(arche) λόγος(logos) λόγος(logos) θεὸς(theos) λόγος(logos) θεὸς(theos)”. In Greek, that would read something like “beginning word word God word God”. The word theos means God, that’s it. This is how the passage actually reads:

“ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”

or

“en archE eimi ho logos kai ho logos eimi pros ho theos kai theos eimi ho logos”

so this is how it should go:

en archE - In the beginning
eimi ho logos - was the Word,
kai ho logos - and the Word
eimi pros ho theos - was with God
kai theos eimi ho logos - and the Word was God

So as you can see, theos only means God.

The word “theos” also means “likeness“ and is used in Eph 4:24

Eph 4:24 You must display a new nature because you are a new person, created in God’s likeness–righteous, holy, and true.

and put g1746 ἐνδύωendyō
on the new g2537 καινόςkainos
self, * g444 ἄνθρωποςanthrōpos *
which in the likeness of God g2316 θεόςtheos *
has been created g2936 κτίζωktizō *
in righteousness g1343 δικαιοσύνηdikaiosynē *
and holiness g3742 ὁσιότηςhosiotēs *
of the truth. g225 ἀλήθειαalētheia

Wrong again Martin, like I said, the word theos means God, that’s it. Once again you are leaving out some words. Here is how the verse reads:

“καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας”

or

“kai enduO ho kainos anthrOpos ho kata theos ktizO en dikaiosunE kai hosiotEs ho alEtheia”

The word for “likeness” in this verse is kata. Kata theos means “according to God” or “likeness of God”.

Jesus is like God and we should try and be like Jesus.

Jesus IS God and yes, we should try to be like Jesus.

So you could also translate John 1:1 as

In the beginning was the Word, and the word was Christ and the word was like God.
Which is what you’d expect i.e. The son is like the father.

NO, you CANNOT translate the verse that way. The words for Christ (χριστοῦ or christos) or like (probably κατὰ or kata) are not in there at all! The normal way is the ONLY way to translate it.

I found a discussion on this verse (John 1:1) some time ago on the net.
A Greek expert from some university was asked if this verse shows that Jesus is God.
He started by making it clear he was not at all religious so could give an unbiased opinion.
His conclusion was that there was not enough information in this short sentence to say one way or the other.

From the first verse of John? I wouldn’t say it’s possible to say that JESUS is God from this verse. It is possible, and CORRECT, to say that the “Word” is God. So when John 1:1is put together with John 1:14, it becomes clear that Jesus IS, in fact, God.

 

[zach_dunn]

If you are going to try and work from Greek, I think it might be better if you actually understood Greek… or at least how inflected languages.

Here is the greek transliterated into Latin Characters to make it easier to follow:

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.

As another poster (Ghosty) has pointed out, each time Theos is used, it has a different ending. Now I am no expert on Greek, but I do understand how inflected languages work. A difference in ending can not only change number or tense (if it is a verb) but it can also add a whole host of other meanings to the word. Certainly in latin (a language I have more familiarity with) if you took Deus (The nomitive for God in Latin… the equivalent of Theos) and changed it to Deum, depending on context, it could mean with God or to God or even from God (My latin is a little rusty, so forgive me if I am reading too much into this particular ending for God).

Theos can mean Christ or God’s representative so you could translate John 1:1 as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Christ and the Word was God’s representative.

Nope… Theos is definitely Greek for God. The Greek for Christ is Christos.

No, theos does not mean likeness… it might mean “like God” but it does not mean just likeness. In addition, when translating from other languages you need to be careful to remember that they don’t necessarily translate as cleanly as we might like them too.

Well, I am certain that no Greek expert would agree with the reading you are suggesting. Before you start trying to translate to support your position, at least take a single course in Greek. Theos means god… (it doesn’t have to mean God with the capital G, but it does have to mean at least a god).

–
Bill

It appears that you’re using the Blue Letter Bible concordance, but you don’t know how to read it. The first part you wrote about in blue actually says ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν which means “was with God”, with theos being bolded. The second part says καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος which means “the Word was God”, again theos is bolded, as is logos. The different endings of theos, and the different words around it, indicate the meaning of the two sentances; it’s not as if theos itself is simply used twice all alone.

You make the same mistake of not isolating the particular word in Ephesians which means likeness, and which doesn’t appear in the passages about Jesus.

As for where Jesus is called “I Am”, I’ve already provided that in my previous post. He calls Himself “I Am” in John 7.

Peace and God bless!

Darn it, I spent almost an hour on my post to find out that you two had already covered the Greek! I’ll start reading the threads before I post in them!

Oh well, maybe three posts will get through to him?

Zach

 

[John7]

Ok here it is:

John 1:1 (Greek):

archē In the beginning g746
logos was the Word, g3056
logos and the Word g3056
theos was with God, g2316 Here we’re told theos means “was with God”
logos and the Word g3056
theos was God. g2316 Here we’re told theos means “was God”

“Theos” is used twice but the translators have chosen a different meaning for each time it is used. How can they do that? If I said “cat cat” would they translate that as “cat dog”?
It looks like the translators have made it read what they want it to read.
Maybe they were trying to fit in with what Constantine believed because that became the done thing and people just blindly followed. At first to avoid execution then later it became tradition.

Theos can mean Christ or God’s representative so you could translate John 1:1 as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Christ and the Word was God’s representative.

Martin the above sounds discombabelated…take time and open up verse (a little) grammatically

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

εν αρχη…the preposition ‘εν’/‘in’ takes the dative. ‘Arche’ is a noun in the dative case (and Sing. Fem.) and means ‘beginning’. Together the two words make a short prepositional phrase translated as ‘in beginning’ which in english needs an article so that we get ‘in the beginning’

ην…‘hn’ is a verb an imperfect indicative of ‘eimi’, third person singular from ‘hmhn’ meaning ‘was’.

ο λογος…the ‘o’ is the article for ‘logos’ meaning ‘the’, it agrees in case/number/gender with its noun which is ‘logos’. The ‘s’ ending of logos denotes that the noun is in the nominative case and singular. ‘logo-’ is masculine. Therefore both ‘logos’ and ‘o’ are NSM and together mean ‘the word’

…so the first part of John 1:1 reads ‘In the beginning was the Word’

και…conjunction meaning ‘and’

ο λογος…see above, again NSM means ‘the word’. This is the start of the second part of the verse.

ην…see above II-verb 3rd person sing. ‘was’

προς τον θεον…these three greek words form another prepositional phrase. ‘pros’ is a preposition, takes the accusative and means 'to, toward, ~‘with’, ‘in the presence of’. ‘ton’ is another form of the article ‘o’, again it just means ‘the’ and is in the accusative case (ASM). ‘theon’ ends with an ‘n’ denoting that the noun is accusative agreeing with its prep. (also ASM like its article) and means God. So this three word prepositional phrase means ‘with the God’ in English we’d just write ‘with God’

…this second part of verse reads ‘the word was with God’

και…another conjunction meaning ‘and’

θεος…this is the beginning of the last (3rd) part of the verse. This time the Greek name for God has an ‘s’ on the end instead of ‘n’ that’s because '‘theos’ is in a different case. The case changes but the meaning of the noun doesn’t. Now theos is in the nominative case (Nom.Sing. & Masc.) and again means ‘God’

ην…see above, means ‘was’

ο λογος…see above, means ‘the word’

…so this 3rd part of the verse reads ‘God was the Word’ or switch it the order of the two nouns and get ‘the Word was God’

So finally we have these three parts connected with 2 ‘and’-conjunctions which reads ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’. Best translation, most Bibles have.

The word “theos” also means “likeness“ and is used in Eph 4:24

‘Theos’ never means ‘likeness’. There are Greek words for likeness (eg, tupon)

God bless, and remember Jesus is certainly God

 

[zach_dunn]

But - 2Ti 3:16 -
All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, NIV
If church teaching doesn’t go by the Bible, it isn’t God-breathed and could, therefore, contain man made ideas.
1TH 5:21 But examine everything {carefully;} hold fast to that which is good; NASB

2 Tim 3:16 refers to the OT. As I believe it’s been pointed out, the Church is the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15], not the Bible. The earliest Christians didn’t have a Bible, they went by the teaching of the Church. The Church had the authority and it never stopped, it is precisely the authority of this Church that told you what books are expired or not. You have to believe that the Church was infallible in this respect, and infallibility doesn’t stop. The Church has always taught the truth infallibly and still does.

Where does it say that about Jesus?

John 8:58
“58 Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’”

compared with-

Exodus 3:14
“14 God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”’”

Why didn’t Jesus say “I was” in Jn 8:58? Why did He say I am? John 8:59 enlightens us:

John 8:59
“59 So they [Jews] took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.”

Why did the Jews take up stones to throw at Him? Because he was blaspheming! He was calling Himself God and the Jews knew it, this was considered blasphemy which was punishable by death [Lev 24:16]. Why don’t you believe Jesus when He claims divinity for Himself?

YES! AGREED!
Not “God became man” as some say.

Actually, Jesus is God (see examples above) and Jesus became man. So yes, God became man. Not God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit, but God the Son.

Chambers definition:
divinity noun (divinities) 1 theology. 2 a god. 3 the state of being God or a god.
That would mean there are 2 Gods and we are told there is only one.
Saying they are a trinity is a way of getting round that but it’s not in the Bible - just a man made idea. Why would you want to try and get round it? Just believe what it says.

No, there is only one God [Deut 6:4]. What makes the three Persons God is their Divine Nature, something they all share, the same Divine Nature. There are three distinct Persons in the one God, not three gods, three Divine Persons. This does not contradict Deut 6:4 because it’s not three gods. I don’t expect you to understand it, no one completely understands it. Christianity has been pondering the Trinity since the beginning and no one has completely understood it and no one will. It’s called an Absolute Mystery. All you need to know is that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity.

He looked like a man as He was given a human body but He was no ordinary man, as He was the Son of God.

Jesus was human, according to John 1:14.

God’s-Son-man would sound better. Or “Son of God” as He and God said or “Son of man” as He said but not “God the Son” as some say.

He is the God-man because He is God and man, as I’ve demonstrated.

Welll…that doesn’t really sound right. I think it’s us that have 2 natures.
Rom 7:21 It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. NLT
We sometimes do the right thing and sometimes don’t. Isn’t that having 2 natures?

I would say that doing the wrong thing when you know what’s right is actually the definition of the human nature. The human nature that has been tainted with original sin and always has the inclination to sin. Humans are composed of a human person and a human nature, Jesus is composed of a Divine Person with Divine and human natures.

But don’t we all? (With the exception of God).
If you agree God has only one but think Jesus has two, isn’t that more proof Jesus isn’t God?

Nope, we believe that God the Father has one nature, God the Holy Spirit has one nature and God the Son has two natures.

Zach

 

[zach_dunn]

When the commandments were given, there was no Jesus (on earth at the time).

Where was Jesus before He became man? In your opinion?

When Jesus came, he did away with the law.

That’s a no no Martin, :tsktsk:.

Matthew 5:17
“17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Yes.

When Newbie says “Jesus as Lord”, he means as God. At least I think that’s what he means…

Protestant sounds ok to me. See my other post for its definition.
I try and go by what the Bible says.

That’s the first problem, you’re going by just the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that you should. As it’s been said already, the Church is the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15].

I don’t know if there is a church or religion that does that. I’ve heard that when Joseph Smith (Mormon) had his vision of God and Jesus, he asked which church he should go to. He was told none of them have got it right. Maybe that’s still the case, I don’t know.

You’re willing to believe that Joseph Smiths “apparition” is true? I don’t know what to say to that, unless you’re just saying you agree.

I expect when Jesus criticized some of the 7 churches, they were surprised, each thinking they were correct.

What are you talking about?

P.S. I’m not a Mormon in case you’re wondering.

What are you, then?

Zach

 

[Martin_R]

Mark 10
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. NLT

Isn’t this Jesus saying He’s not God?

Still busy - not ignoring the other comments. Before anybody says that.

 

[Ghosty]

Mark 10
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. NLT

Isn’t this Jesus saying He’s not God?

If He was saying that He’s not God, He would have said “don’t call me good”. It’s a teachable moment, and given that He claims Divinity in many other places it is clear that His intention in this moment is not to say He’s not God, but to get the people to think about what they’re saying about Christ.

Peace and God bless!

 

[placido]

Mark 10
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. NLT
Isn’t this Jesus saying He’s not God?
Still busy - not ignoring the other comments. Before anybody says that.

Jesus did not “say”, He asked why (not knowing He was God) were they calling Him good.
Martin, you have a choice to make: either Jesus is God and is truly good for you and me; or Jesus is not God and is not good enough for you. However, He is truly good and truly God for me.

placido

 

[ms_alternative]

why do we need to kill god’s son to be accepted by him?

when Jesus was on the cross did he ask himself or god oh lord oh lord why have you forsaking me?

did he pray to himself?

do you read the bible?

Jesus talked of god in heaven?

the religion that you follow is Paul’s Mytharism.

Paul was not appointed an apostle the 12 are mentioned and he contradicts Jesus.

if Jesus was god he could not have died on the cross god is and was and is to come.

god can not be killed!

this douse not make sense and if it douse you are polytheistic 3 gods father son holy spirit

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

 

[placido]

Ms Alternative, I hope you are here to learn what Christians in general and Catholics in particular, believe.

why do we need to kill god’s son to be accepted by him?

That is what He chose to do, like He chose to create the universe and create you but you don’t ask why.

when Jesus was on the cross did he ask himself or god oh lord oh lord why have you forsaking me?

He asked God the Father.

did he pray to himself?

He prayed to God the Father.

do you read the bible?

(Let me skip this one open because it is not specifically directed to me)

Jesus talked of god in heaven?

Yes.

the religion that you follow is Paul’s Mytharism.

And your source is …

Paul was not appointed an apostle the 12 are mentioned and he contradicts Jesus.

If your source is the Bible, you are showing hypocritical tendencies – believing the Bible when it identifies the 12 Apostles, yet disbelieving it when it identifies Paul as an apostle.

if Jesus was god he could not have died on the cross god is and was and is to come.
god can not be killed!

A god who “can not” is not truly God.

this douse not make sense and if it douse you are polytheistic 3 gods father son holy spirit

I encourage you to rather study what we really believe instead of adamantly following pre-conceived notions. Read the Christian Creeds, you will find we don’t believe in 3 gods, but in One True God.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Problem is you convincing yourself that whatever disagrees with what you believe is contrary to reason and common sense.

placido

 

[Martin_R]

It appears that you’re using the Blue Letter Bible concordance

Correct.

Strong’s definition of theos includes this:

1. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

a) God’s representative or viceregent

So can’t it be translated as follows?

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’s representative’

Then it ties in with what God said about sending somebody to speak on His behalf (Deut 18 v16-19).

It also fits with the following verses:

1 John 4
9 God showed how much he loved us by sending his only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

“Sending” not “going Himself”.

Mat 21:37 "Finally, the owner sent his son, thinking, Surely they will respect my son.' Mat 21:38** "But when the farmers saw his son coming, they said to one another, Here comes the heir to this estate. Come on, let’s kill him and get the estate for ourselves!’

1 John 4
14 Furthermore, we have seen with our own eyes and now testify that the Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

 

[ms_alternative]

Ms Alternative,

If your source is the Bible, you are showing hypocritical tendencies – believing the Bible when it identifies the 12 Apostles, yet disbelieving it when it identifies Paul as an apostle.

placido

Matthew 10
1And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

4Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

may god bless you and your whole entire family

i am here to fellowship i do dot mean to disrespect you or your view. i would like to be your friend.

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha

 

[Martin_R]

When Jesus came, he did away with the law.
That’s a no no Martin, . :tsktsk:

Matthew 5:17
“17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Oops
Sorry, yes, I got that one wrong.
I think I was in a hurry to go out and thought I’d better post something or I’ll get moaned at.
Was going to look it up to make sure I’d got that right, then I saw the time and rushed out.
Lesson learnt… I hope!

 

[Martin_R]

That’s the first problem, you’re going by just the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that you should. As it’s been said already, the Church is the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15].

Yes but which church? Surely the one to pick is one that goes by God’s word - The Bible.

Quote:
I don’t know if there is a church or religion that does that. I’ve heard that when Joseph Smith (Mormon) had his vision of God and Jesus, he asked which church he should go to. He was told none of them have got it right. Maybe that’s still the case, I don’t know.
You’re willing to believe that Joseph Smiths “apparition” is true? I don’t know what to say to that, unless you’re just saying you agree.

I’m just saying maybe “none of them have got it right”. I started to read a booklet one of them gave me but it didn’t agree with the Bible so I didn’t bother reading the rest. Which is another example of the point I’m making. A church that doesn’t go by the Bible can’t be any good, can it?

 

[ms_alternative]

Many people in the Gospel asked that very same question
directly to Jesus and let’s see what the reply was;

“And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed
must I do, to have eternal life?”

“And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One
there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the
commandments.” Matthew 19:16-17

Here according to Jesus, to enter Heaven, we follow the
commandments.

A question to the Christians is: why would Jesus mislead this man
if the ‘only way to heaven was through the blood of Jesus’?

Was Jesus misleading this man by teaching that Works will open the
Gates of Heaven?

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:10

Here Jesus says that Martyrs will go to Heaven, those who die and
suffer for a good cause will go to Heaven.

Is Jesus again being misleading since all Christians claim that the one
and only way to Heaven is through the blood of Jesus as the church
teaches.

Here again a Lawyer asked the Important Question, How to enter
Heaven;

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
“Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus said “What is written in the law? How do
you read?”

And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will
live.” Luke 10:25-28

The lawyer asked the teacher Jesus how to have eternal life and
Jesus replied “Read”… “The Law”.…. “Obey the Law” believe in
God and love your neighbor.

Why in front of all these people would Jesus not tell them the
so-called only way that the Christians of today are saying ‘no way to heaven except
through the blood of Jesus’, why would Jesus contradict today’s
Christians?

Are Christians freed from the Law as the modern Christians teach?

“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and
teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven.” Matthew 5:19

Why would Jesus Teach this if he came so that his blood can relax
the Law, why is it when he was on earth, he Taught Not to Relax the
Law? And Those who follow the Laws will be the Highest in
Heaven.

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven.” Matthew 7:21

Salvation according to some Christians comes from taking Jesus as
your god and accepting the claimed blood sacrifice, while on the
Other Hand, Jesus seems to be saying the Opposite. Why is that?
Aren’t Christians supposed to follow the Teachings of Jesus,

As far as Salvation is concerned, Muslims are
following the Teachings of Jesus, why haven’t the
Christians started yet ?

“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother,
and sister, and mother.” (Mark 3:35) If Jesus is god, why would he claim that
who ever follows the Commandments would be the brother or
mother of god ? Does god have a mother of brother?

“Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you
possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven;
and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21

Giving to directly to the Poor, one of the 5 Pillars of Islam, Jesus is
Teaching Piety to Enter Heaven.