• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

Thanks for your reply there strongvoicesforward san !!! :cool: I think we can take a look at these terms, and the whole statement then, if I can take it that you are agreeing that this is what you had had in mind in that first sentence.

As for the original languages, there will definitely be some times when there will be a number of choices to choose from in 'direct renderings' and also some in the 'interpreted renderings'. My most common approach on this sub-forum of Jref, has been to provide insight into these cases far more often than trying to demand that one or another is THE word to use. It is also important to bear in mind, that there are different ways to express things in English itself, and that, we will find, also makes differences between English versions and translations at times.

From time to time, I may cross-reference some points from here over to the 'Biblical Texts' thread for the purpose of going into some detail there with a textual problem or whathaveyou, instead of weighing down this, or the 'Bible not WOG' thread.

The later portion of the #2 you provided may run into some snags, I'm not sure at the moment. Let's take a look at that too. That may well be the best place to start, so I will ask you to please take the floor first. It may be nice to use proof texts (identify them at least, so that all can check where it is that some defining point on the concept of 'Son of God' is from.)

This will be a little bit of a task, but I eagerly look forward to it !! Catch you later !! (I've got to crash now...) :cool: :-) :wave:
 
Are people saved forever once they accept Jesus as their saviour and repent for their sins and follow him as their faith? Jesus thinks so:

John 10:25~30
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

But, Timothy tells us some will abandon the faith:

1 Timothy 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Remember, Jesus says they cannot be snatched.

If Jesus is on the same sheet of paper as his Father and the Spirit, in effect, they are One, then why aren`t they agreeing with one another?
 
That contradiction would also be far too easy for even some of the more fundamentalist Christians to refute. A true follower would never fall away, while someone like myself would be categorized as never truly having been one of His, for if I had been, I would have never fallen away. In essence, I didn't truly believe, as it says in John 10:25, 'I did tell you, but you do not believe me.........'
 
Revenant, how can they abandon the faith if they were not true followers? If they were not followers, then they would not have anything to abandon.

If you were not ever "truly" "His," then how could you be abandoning anything? In order to abandon something, you have to be "on board."

If you are in a state of "not abandoning" something you are a follower of, then you are following something (i.e. you are on board).

If you have accepted Christ as your saviour, and repented in order to accept his grace, aren`t you one of his? Doesn`t Jesus consider those who have accepted him as the Son of God and their saviour as his sheep? Or, can`t people ever say they are a Xtian until the moment of their death when the life has become a shut case?
 
One was on board for reasons other than a true belief in God and His son sent down as a sacrifice for our sins. Perhaps one liked some of the morals of Christianity, or one like the promise of eternal life, but when things got tough, one fell away, and that is evidence that it wasn't a true conviction. That's how it would be reasoned anyways, and I think you are taking that even more literally than even most fundamentalists would.
 
sorry, i didn`t read the entire thread thoroughly - i am not really interested
in theological discussions. But could you, please, clarify some points for me?

1. In prayer (Matthew) Jesus references to god as "Our Father in heaven...", and if i am not mistaken this "our Father" can be met in some other verses (in both translations - russian and english)

question 1: this "our" comes from original languages, or result of translation (into Greek, for example)
question 2: comes out from #1. Could this "our" possibly mean that anyone in Christ`s company (as well as any human) IS the SON of GOD ( due to the idea that god is a creator of everything). And if anyone is a child of god, there is nothing impossible for Jesus to be the one.
question 3: rather historically cultural. At those times at that region "Father" would reference only biological father or it could be also a form of polite compellation to "spiritual teacher" (spiritual father), to someone elder, more experienced or higher ranking and such?

2. if Jesus was a man (and i think he was, disregardin the paternity question :D) there could exist possibility that he didn`t feel pain (at least physical) - i don`t remember how this desease is called when brain doesn`t respond to the paiful stimulus

3. there are some other questions, but i`ll keep`em for a while %)
 
Interesting- I believe the possibility exists that your ideas are not without foundation. They are unorthodoxed, and unique, but not outrageous. I would think that you would have to build a more substantial case based around several instances and usages and not just this one, but you seem to have a good start.
 
sabro said:
I would think that you would have to build a more substantial case based around several instances and usages and not just this one, but you seem to have a good start.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Sabro san =) But im am not interested in building anything pro or contra. I am not going to search the Bible or Apocripha. so far i realised that I simply don`t care. These are just old notions and observations spat out in attempt to return the thread to the idea originated in a topic`s name:p
 
That could mean no one else could snatch you away, but you are free to walk away on your own accord. (Unless you are a Calvanist.)
 
Hello there Void san !! Always nice to see you around !! Please do allow me to get back to your concerns there. And I just do happen to have a copy of NT in Russian, so I can check that out too.

Just off the top of my head, for the moment, I would say that the Greek would have the pronoun in the instrumental--just as Russian would.

Please allow me a little time, though, I may have to do that tomorrow or next week. Please do check back for that. Thanks a lot !!
 
Void said:
1. In prayer (Matthew) Jesus references to god as "Our Father in heaven...", and if i am not mistaken this "our Father" can be met in some other verses (in both translations - russian and english)

question 1: this "our" comes from original languages, or result of translation (into Greek, for example)
Click to expand...

It is the original language, and as I had said--if my memory serves me well, is like the Russian. In Greek it will be in various inflected styles of mode (or case) such as: nomative--designation; genitive--description (usually to attribute quality to, but has a number of shades); ablative--separation; dative--interest (esp. indirect object); locative--location/position; instrumental--means; accusative-limitation (esp. direct object); vocative--address. * Here I had erred in my previous post, it would be gentitve, not instrumental--sorry.

The text at Mt 5:16 reads: ton patera emon (ton patera hemon) and literally translates the father of us. The transliterated Russian, if I'm correct, is 'otche nash.


question 2: comes out from #1. Could this "our" possibly mean that anyone in Christ`s company (as well as any human) IS the SON of GOD ( due to the idea that god is a creator of everything). And if anyone is a child of god, there is nothing impossible for Jesus to be the one.

This would surely lean almost completely on interpretation. If we could ask the person who had penned those words attributed to Jesus, we could know how that person would have seen that. A very unanswerable question, I'd think. However, in NT usage in general, the formula 'son of god' is distinct from the concept 'children of god'.

question 3: rather historically cultural. At those times at that region "Father" would reference only biological father or it could be also a form of polite compellation to "spiritual teacher" (spiritual father), to someone elder, more experienced or higher ranking and such?

All the way back from Hebrew usage, the word ab'h was used for both biological father as well as for master, person of rank, etc. In HS (Hebrew Scriptures) it is found at Dt. 32:6; 2 Sam 7:14 (an implied understanding) Ps 89:26; Is 9:6; 63:16; 31:9; Jer 3:4, 19--and that's about it. In NT, we can find, 'your' (plural) father [ottsa vashego ?], my father [ottsem moem] (attributed to Jesus).
[/QUOTE] I hope that will answer those, for now at least. See you 'round !! das vidanya ! {is that right?} Wow, I have to brush up my Russian...
 
I like the constructive and hedonistic parts, but what are you indefferential about?
Click to expand...
Well, Sabro san, i am indifferential about things that don`t affect my lifestyle anyhow. Of course, at the very first moment i might go ablaze, but it doesn`t last long. In this particular situation the answer (whichever it might be) to the question of the thread will not change anything.
I might get some intellectual pleasure trying to find the answers and
evidential support to the points i`ve made, but there are more interesting and urgent things in a list, so these ones can be regretlessly postponed
And argueing for the sake of argueing is not gratifying at all. I find teological
discussions and arguing is no more than exercise of a brain, and there are much more useful ways to excersize this part. As simple as that...

An no offence =) i respect your (or someone else`s) possible need to debate
around such subjects. If something makes you grow why should it be banished?
 
Does it clearly say somewhere in the Original Jewish Scriptures that the sacrifice of the Son of God is required to atone for the sins of man?

Are we sinning because of original sin? Is that what set everything in motion?

Why should 'death' come to us because of original sin?

Deut 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Somebody, I hope, should tell Paul -- for he seems confused on the issue:

1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Women seem to be paying for original sin still. Why are women paying for the mistakes of thier ancestors? That doesn`t sound very 'just.' Would you cause pain on someone who was not responsible for an action and then make sure that it was the "'gift' that kept on giving?"

Gen 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

If the SOG came to defeat sin, someone should tell the ladies, because they seem to need an epidermal to escape from that which Bible God has decided they rightfully should experience.

So, are when displeasing the SOG when they opt for an epidermal and escaping from his wrath?

If the SOG came to defeat evil or sin, he sure did not do a very good job of the consequences of the original one. Just ask the ladies.

No where in the BWOG does it say the Messiah would fail when he comes. Jesus failed. He doesn`t seem to qualify as the SOG according to the Jewish scriptures -- the foundation of Christianity.
 
Seems a pretty easy question with an obvious answer. Apply some critical thinking skills and you will come up with what everyone else who reads the passages comes up with. Usually when you see hoof prints, they were made by horses and not zebras.
 
:clueless: :note: Probably and should be - reading the Bible, everyone who takes it proceeding from the representations, will see there self of himself... Well and each of us has many conflicts in our world that is not pleasant to it... And consequently the conflict to the Bible is inevitable and infinite... But unless the Bible - a deceit if all these "contradictions" there are "in black and white written... There Can be a Bible it is "Labyrinth" where enter millions millions, and "exit" can find only one of us?... How to be the rest with their "belief", what they " can find this way out "?... The Severe reality - but "it" conducts us to understanding of the only thing " the primary God " from whom all began... (though it is "heap" of dissertations on a theme of "copyright"...):angel:............... :music:
 
The SOG comes to Earth as a sacrifice.

?gSacrifice.?h

Sacrifice entails giving up something. What was given up by Jesus? Not his life. He couldn`t really die. In the story he resurrected. If he resurected in ?glife?h then that would mean that he took back which he sacrificed which would mean he never gave up anything. Is BGod an ?gIndian giver??h -- give something and take it back? Sounds like an insincere sacrifice from the get go.

And, if he came to Earth as a sacrifice, which he knew his mission and fate in advance was, why would he ask that ?gthis cup?h (i.e. his fate) be passed from him? -- knowing that it was necessary and in fact a foregone conclusion since BGod and Jesus exist in all demensions and time since he is omnipotent.

There is Jesus on the cross asking himself why he has foresaken himself when just the other day he was asking himself to spare himself his fate. He didn`t come to sacrifice willlingly -- he was forced into it by his adversaries who were stronger than him and while he was on the cross he was not dieing happily for our sins. Didn`t he know it was a necessity? Why all the attempts at meneuvering out of it?

If he as asking himself to save himself and asking himself questions and for answers he did not know, doesn`t that tell one that the story is one built on anything other than reason? It paints the picture quite clear if reason is utilized to examine it. Perhaps there was some schizophrania going on in this man who may have existed but was in all probability in the grips of dillusions.

Sometimes I see the wandering homeless people around Star Buchs here looking into the sky and talking. I even asked one once what his profession was before this life of wandering and talking to the sky took him over. He answered he was a "carpenter." On another day I saw him again and asked him the same question and then he replied a "teacher." I never asked him his name, but I was wondering if he was going to hit 3 out of 3 with "Jesus" as the reply.
 
The true nature of Jesus caused not end of problems in the early church. Was he truely divine? Was he mortal raised to divinity? Was he mortal and divine? Many questions raised by early christians. Some got killed for the heresies they pondered and it caused many splits within the Catholic church. This question has beeen pondered for almost 2000 years and still no answers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top