to JVH, from below.

to JVH, from below.

Joined: April 17th, 2006, 10:37 pm

April 22nd, 2012, 1:51 am #1

I had no option on the post to respond to you. Either it's a glitch, the thread was too long, or we broke Mondo's board. Since there are options to respond on other posts, I don't think anything is irreparably broken.

If this wasn't a new turn, I wouldn't respond...but there is a little glimmer of something else, so why not? Can't be any worse than the rest of that thread =)

**************************************************************************************************************************

Response to Yes, that's right about where you came in...

K: The latest gospel, John, was completed about 60 years after his death, and the opening verses claim his deity.

JVH: The opening verses you refer to do not seem to claim the deity of the Jesus character, those opening verses do mention a "John" though (nice play on words eh? ).


Sorry, the play on words went right over my head...not sure what you are talking about.

And I don't know if we are looking at the same verses from the beginning of John. These are the verses I'm looking at:

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, This is the one I spoke about when I said, He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.


This passage states:
There was a being, existent from the beginning of everything, who was with God and who was God. This being is referred to as the Word.
All things were created through this being -- the Word.
In the Word was life that is the light of all mankind.
There was a man named John who came to testify about that light. Vs. 8: He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
When the Word, this light, came into the world, the world did not recognize or receive him.
This being, the Word, became a human being and lived on earth. Vs 14 the Word, became flesh and made his dwelling among us. The Word is referred to as the Son of God.
No one has ever seen God, but the Son (the Word) has made him known.

From the rest of the text of John, which is all about the life and ministry of Jesus -- who was frequently referred to as the Son of God -- it is clear that "the Word" is Jesus.

The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Whether or not you believe this text, believe in God, or believe Jesus existed is irrelevant. This is what it states in the text.

JVH: As for "your" beliefs, they are not my call, they never were, since I realize that what you so lovingly like to call "your" beliefs aren't "your" beliefs at all, they are someone else's beliefs (you seem to be in agreement with for some reason or other) and have adapted as your own.

Yes, they are my beliefs...as much as anyone's beliefs about anything are their own. I suppose you could argue that every single thing anyone thinks or believes if they've heard anything like it ever before anywhere isn't "their" belief, but one they've adapted. Or adopted. Or both. "Adapt" usually means "to change", and "adopt" means "to accept". I would say that I have read and talked with a lot of people about their beliefs about God, adopted some of those beliefs, and adapted others so they made more sense to me.

If I adopted children, they were once someone else's, but they are mine now, hmm? And yes, I would "loving like to call" them my own. =D

Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

April 22nd, 2012, 6:58 am #2

Which goes back to 2004 on this forum.

Perhaps network54.com/Forum/272761 is full to the limit of what they allow.

Perhaps it needs to be reduced to just a few pages instead of 100?

It is usually deeper problems that cause the symptoms in networks as well in people.

Bro Tim
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

April 24th, 2012, 4:30 am #3

I had no option on the post to respond to you. Either it's a glitch, the thread was too long, or we broke Mondo's board. Since there are options to respond on other posts, I don't think anything is irreparably broken.

If this wasn't a new turn, I wouldn't respond...but there is a little glimmer of something else, so why not? Can't be any worse than the rest of that thread =)

**************************************************************************************************************************

Response to Yes, that's right about where you came in...

K: The latest gospel, John, was completed about 60 years after his death, and the opening verses claim his deity.

JVH: The opening verses you refer to do not seem to claim the deity of the Jesus character, those opening verses do mention a "John" though (nice play on words eh? ).


Sorry, the play on words went right over my head...not sure what you are talking about.

And I don't know if we are looking at the same verses from the beginning of John. These are the verses I'm looking at:

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, This is the one I spoke about when I said, He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.


This passage states:
There was a being, existent from the beginning of everything, who was with God and who was God. This being is referred to as the Word.
All things were created through this being -- the Word.
In the Word was life that is the light of all mankind.
There was a man named John who came to testify about that light. Vs. 8: He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
When the Word, this light, came into the world, the world did not recognize or receive him.
This being, the Word, became a human being and lived on earth. Vs 14 the Word, became flesh and made his dwelling among us. The Word is referred to as the Son of God.
No one has ever seen God, but the Son (the Word) has made him known.

From the rest of the text of John, which is all about the life and ministry of Jesus -- who was frequently referred to as the Son of God -- it is clear that "the Word" is Jesus.

The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Whether or not you believe this text, believe in God, or believe Jesus existed is irrelevant. This is what it states in the text.

JVH: As for "your" beliefs, they are not my call, they never were, since I realize that what you so lovingly like to call "your" beliefs aren't "your" beliefs at all, they are someone else's beliefs (you seem to be in agreement with for some reason or other) and have adapted as your own.

Yes, they are my beliefs...as much as anyone's beliefs about anything are their own. I suppose you could argue that every single thing anyone thinks or believes if they've heard anything like it ever before anywhere isn't "their" belief, but one they've adapted. Or adopted. Or both. "Adapt" usually means "to change", and "adopt" means "to accept". I would say that I have read and talked with a lot of people about their beliefs about God, adopted some of those beliefs, and adapted others so they made more sense to me.

If I adopted children, they were once someone else's, but they are mine now, hmm? And yes, I would "loving like to call" them my own. =D
I tried to respond to the post in question and was succesful, so, no probs from this end.

18 verses that make up one-third of the whole (chapter) hardly counts as "opening" verses, do they now?

Anyway, as you said <em>...that's right about where you came in...</em> and when we look were I came in, in response to what, and what I posed ... what's your misconception then?


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 17th, 2006, 10:37 pm

April 24th, 2012, 8:41 am #4

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word.
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God.

The Word refers to Jesus, as clearly shown in the rest of the text. John is not mentioned by name until verse 6, and he is mentioned as a witness to testify about the Word, who is the central figure in the passage.

The first 18 verses of the first chapter of John do constitute the opening verses of the book. There are 50 verses in John 1, and 21 chapters, 879 verses total in John - so yes, the first 18 are the opening verses, and a complete passage.

And they very strongly indicate the deity of Jesus Christ. There's much more, but that one passage is pretty clear - the Word was with God and the Word was God.

When you came in to the conversation, that is exactly what I was talking about - there are many passages in the Bible that indicate the deity of Jesus, and to say there is nothing written in the Bible that indicates that is incorrect.

You came in, changed the subject to the reliability of the Bible, or that it's hearsay (never the point I was discussing), and then told me for the rest of the thread that was not the topic at all, I'm not addressing the point, I'm not addressing the subject at hand, that I cannot figure out your point, cannot determine the "intrinsic value" of your point since cannot figure out what that point *is*, that I know what you're getting at but I just "won't have it", that if I don't know what "intrinsic value" means I should look it up, the "problem" lies in my "redefinition" of the word "discussion", that if a discussion isn't going my way then according to me it isn't a "real discussion"...etc,

I submit to you that I have stayed exactly on the original point; you changed the subject.
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

April 24th, 2012, 10:19 am #5


 

... I wasn't addressing what Arthur posed, I addressed what you posed: <em>"Do you know what he said?", </em>to which I responded: "Nope ... and neither do you. <img alt="wink.gif" src="http://www.network54.com/images/wink.gif" width="14" height="14"> Interesting uh?", which you affirmed: <em>"Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."</em>

So, I did not 'change the subject', or at least I did not intent to, I merely responded to something you yourself posed. So, if the subject was changed, it was due to what you yourself posed I merely responded to and you affirmed. Now, why would you affirm something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and would therefore qualify as "changing the subject"? Exactly, you wouldn't. Unless, of course, you would. <img alt="wink.gif" src="/images/wink.gif" width="14" height="14">

In other words, within the discussion something came up to which I responded. That's all really, the rest went from thereon.

However, if you want to insist the subject was changed, then pin-point the instance where it happened, how, by whom and see what comes up?

 

P.S. Keep in mind it takes at least 2 participants to actually change the subject

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

CD: short for inevitability
Last edited by JVH on April 24th, 2012, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 17th, 2006, 10:37 pm

April 24th, 2012, 3:59 pm #6

....are often abbreviated or condensed, for the sake of space. I often do as I did on this post, and split the title in half, continuing the rest of the thought at the beginning of the post:

"Post titles on chat boards....are often abbreviated or condensed, for the sake of space."

In this case, you responded to the title of the post - not the content that continued the thought. The issue was never if we know or have proof of what Jesus "said", it was what is the written record of what he said, and what was written about him in the only substantial record of his life.

Art's contention, in many posts on various boards, has been something like, "why do Christians insist that Jesus is God? He never said that, and any suggestions to that effect were added to the Bible hundreds of years after it was written." At least, that is the message I've been reading, and Art has not seemed to be interested in discussing it further at this time.

If that is his contention, it is simply not true. The reasons for that belief are found in the text in many places, as I illustrated in the opening verses of John, above.

I never intended to discuss whether or not we know what Jesus "said" - by that same token we don't know what Charlemagne said, or what Plato said, or what Buddha said. All we have are the written records, and we have to decide for ourselves if we think the are authentic.

I have not had, and have no interest in, a discussion with an atheist about whether or not the Bible is reliable or true, for a few reasons:

1. These conversations go nowhere. Things that are accepted by believers as proof and authentication are almost invariably rejected by atheists. Sometimes for good reason - many "proofs" are flawed.
2. It's like arguing the existence/non-existence of God - no proof is accepted by both sides, and the discussions, again, go nowhere.
3. I do not hold the fundamentalist view that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, so I can't argue that point. I believe there are many things in the Bible that are true, inspired by God, and spiritually valuable...as well as many things that are not.








Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

April 24th, 2012, 10:06 pm #7


 

... nonetheless: <em>"Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."</em>


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

April 25th, 2012, 4:56 am #8

"Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."
---------------------------------------------

Did Abraham Lincoln exist? How do we know????

Did Leonardo Deviancy exist? How do we know????

George Washington?

Jesus?

Moses?

Slave traders?

Noah and the Ark?

Can someone PLEASE provide live recordings or videos or at least an eye wittiness?!?!?! HELP!*#&%^#@ blahahahahaha!!!! too funny



Quote
Share

Joined: April 17th, 2006, 10:37 pm

April 25th, 2012, 8:03 am #9

 

... nonetheless: <em>"Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."</em>


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
...it was a tangent - at least for me - and not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about what is written in the text of the Bible that refers to the deity of Christ, texts like:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... 613/John+1

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... 19/John+14

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... e+Creator-
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

April 25th, 2012, 4:17 pm #10



... otherwise you'd be disagreeing with your own words and you wouldn't want to do that, would you now?

As for talking about what is written in the text of the Bible that refers to the deity of Christ; obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment and we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts, wouldn't you agree?


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share