The Presumptuousness of Atheism

Originally posted by jaywill
"And He said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51)

Um. This doesn't say that Jesus was God. If He said something like,
Truly you will see my angels descending upon me/the Son of Man,
then you would be right. Actually, Jesus is always very clear and
unequivocal when talking about God, the Father. Allow me to 'submit'
a passage:

And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not
condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the
world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has
something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him
on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father
who commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his
commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told
me. (St John 12:47-50)

Now, read it carefully. Jesus says that He got His information from the
Father in heaven. Jesus had nothing except what the Father imparted
upon Him. Had Jesus believed He was God, this distinction would not
be necessary, because God the Father and God the Son are One in
Three, one Divine Person can't be unaware of what the other Divine
Person knows.

This passage suggests that Jesus thought of Himself as a messenger
or mediator (as St Paul says), a vessel through which God the Father
streamed forth.

This was a reference to [b]Genesis 28:11-22. Christ as the Son of Man is the fulfillment of Jacob's dream. Jacob called that place "Bethel" which means the house of God. He dreamed of the angels of God ascending and descending upon a ladder set up on the earth joining earth to heaven.[/b]

Again, you are making another analogy and asserting that Jesus
meant it they way that you mean it. An angel came down to Mary,
who housed Jesus for nine months. Does that mean that she is God,
too? Of course not.

Does Jesus say that He was referring to the Genesis text? No. Is
there any specific mention of ladders here that would evoke such a
connection? No. Angels came to Him when He rested after fasting in
the desert, why can't it refer to that?

And, as for what Jesus said, when did anyone see angels ascending
and descending on the Son of Man, anyway?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]"And He said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51)

Um. This doesn't say that Jesus was God. If He said something like,
Truly you will see my angels descending upon me/the Son of Man,
then you would be righ did anyone see angels ascending
and descending on the Son of Man, anyway?

Nemesio[/b]

Your writing is getting more difuse, but I will try to respond to your
essential points.

For Jesus to teach that He is the real Bethel – the house of God, means that He as the Son of Man is the dwelling place of God. This is not a dwelling of cedar and gold. This is a dwelling of flesh, of mind, of emotion, of will, of humanity. He is God living on the earth.

Yes. But He didn't teach this. He never said 'I am Bethel,' or 'I am
God.' So, everything pertaining to this is standing on a foundation of
sand; you are simply asserting that, because He said angels will
ascend and descend, He is God. But it doesn't follow that this is the
case (because it was never said).
”The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, are making Yourself God.” (John 10:33)

You need to read from 10:22-39. Note, that He says that He does
things on behalf of the Father, that the Father is greater than all,
that He does good works from the Father. When the Jews say that
Jesus is making Himself to be God, Jesus corrects them, saying
that He is the Son of God (36). The Jews were (as is said in other
places) making false claims about what Jesus was doing and, even in
the face of miraculous works, still denied that God was in Jesus.

”Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.

Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me Philip?” (John 14:8,9a)

Again, you need to read from 1-30. Jesus says he who has seen
Jesus has seen the Father, that God is in Him and He is in God, that
His words are His Father's words, that the Father is glorified in the
work of the Son. Note in verse 20, Jesus says that He is in the
Disciples and the Disciples are in Him. Were the Disciples God, too?
Of course not.

See verse 28: If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to
the Father; for the Father is greater than I. God is greater than
Himself? That's nonsensical.

The carrying of the baby Jesus by the virgin woman is not the same as the human spirit, soul, and body of the Son of Man containing God and expressing God in life.

It isn't the same because you prefer your reading. But this alternate
reading fits just as well (if not better, since the womb was most
certainly a housing). But, of course, you don't think Mary is God.

”The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?

Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple” (John 8:57-59)

This particular passage is exceptionally damning to your claim, if you
consider verse 42: Jesus said to [the Jews] -- If God were your Father,
you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not
come on my own, but he sent me.

In this particular case, Jesus is making a clear distinction between
Himself and God, as is clear.

”Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only brioke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)

Again, context is critical; read verses 1-18. Why did the Jews say this?
Because Jesus is claiming the authority to do God's work -- to heal --
on a day where a person ought not do anything but rest and praise
God. That a man would want to do God's work isn't an indication that
he is God.

The Son of Man is the gate of heaven. The Son of Man is the ladder connecting earth to heaven. And the Son of Man is Bethel, the house of God.

This and the following is all extrapolation based on an a priori
assumption.

When the scientific and imperical Thomas called Jesus his [b]”Lord” and his ”God” he was not rebuked by Jesus. Rather Jesus said that Thomas hade seen and believed. But more blessed, taught Jesus, would be those who have not had opportunity to see, to placed their hands in His wounds, but have received Him as God the Lord by means of believing the New Testament.[/b]

How many times have you heard someone say 'My God?' And,
frankly, seeing a person risen from the dead would be enough for
anyone to say such a thing, even an observant Jew.

Did St Thomas (my Biblical hero, by the way) believe that Jesus was
a remarkable individual? Yes. Did he believe that Jesus was the
Chosen One of God. Yes.

Note before (verse 21), Jesus says: as the Father sent me, so I send
you. Does that make the Disciples God? Of course not.

Nemesio

********************************
He never said 'I am Bethel,' or 'I am
God.' So, everything pertaining to this is standing on a foundation of
sand; you are simply asserting that, because He said angels will
ascend and descend, He is God. But it doesn't follow that this is the
case (because it was never said).
********************************

You’re quite wrong though the words “I am Bethel” are not read there the analogy is sufficient. That His human person if God’s dwelling place is reinforced in the next chapter when He speaks of His Father’s house:

”The Jews then answered and said to Him, What sign fo you wshow us, seeing that you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Then the Jews said, this temple was built in forty-six years, and You will raise it up in three days?

BUT HE SPOKE OF THE TEMPLE OF HIS BODY.” (John 2:18-21 My emphasis)

Whose life was in the temple of the physical body of the man Jesus?
When He came to earth He did not leave the Father in heaven. The Father was ever with Him and living in Him.

”The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works” (14:10)

”And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” (8:29)

Do He did not leave His Father in heaven and receive instructions from far away. The Father had not left Him alone but was with Him and worked from within Him. So He is indeed the living human dwelling of God.

*****************************
”The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, are making Yourself God.” (John 10:33)

You need to read from 10:22-39. Note, that He says that He does
things on behalf of the Father, that the Father is greater than all,
that He does good works from the Father.

You are not paying enough attention to verses 28 – 30:

”And I give to them eternal life, and they shall by no means perish forever, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

I and the Father are one.

The hand of the Son and the hand of Father are one. This is because He and the Father are one. It is the Son’s hand of love. And it is the Father's hand of power. They are distinct but they are not separate.

In fact in the same chapter Jesus says that He Himself has authority to lay down His life and take it up again:

”For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, … I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it again. This commandment I receive from My Father.

He will raise up the temple of God, His body in three days. He has authority to take up His life again. He is distinct from the Father. But He is not separate from the Father. He and the Father are one.

I take it that you do not believe in the triune nature of God. I take it that you do not believe that the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

***********************************
When the Jews say that Jesus is making Himself to be God, Jesus corrects them, saying that He is the Son of God (36). The Jews were (as is said in other places) making false claims about what Jesus was doing and, even in the face of miraculous works, still denied that God was in Jesus.
**********************************

I agree that in verse 36 He says that He is the Son of God. But He also said that ”I and the Father are one” in verse 30. And in verse 38 He says ”the Father is in Me and I am in the Father”

And He clearly, as the Son of God, tells Philip in chapter 14 that he who has seen Him has seen the Father. And when Philip asks to be shown the Father Jesus refers to the fact that He has been with them for so long and yet Philip still does not recognize Him –

” … Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known … ME … Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father” (14:9)

So it is paradoxical. But we should receive all the statements of Jesus and not try to nullify one group of sayings with another class of sayings. Taken all together Christ is God incarnate as a man. The Father and the Son are distinct but they are not separate.

I have every reason to believe that the disciple John was clear about what Jesus taught. He was a sent apostle whose words Jesus expected us to receive. And John opens His gospel that the Word was with God and was God. The Word that was God became flesh. That would mean that God became a man.

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God … In Him was life, and the life was the light of men … and the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us …”

His gospel and all the teachings and deeds of Jesus are an extrapolation of his prologue. That is precisely why John includes the various discussions that he does, to show that the Logos of God Who was with God and was God – tabernacled among men as He had become flesh.

I have to reject any suggestion that John is not as enlightened about what Jesus taught as you are. And you are taking some of Christ’s words and using them to deny others of His words. This is partiality and results in twisting the truth.


************************************
Again, you need to read from 1-30. Jesus says he who has seen
Jesus has seen the Father, that God is in Him and He is in God, that
His words are His Father's words, that the Father is glorified in the
work of the Son. Note in verse 20, Jesus says that He is in the
Disciples and the Disciples are in Him. Were the Disciples God, too?
Of course not.
*************************************

Eventually the saved disciples, every one of them become God not in His Godhead as the unique Father. But they become God as the expansion of God into humanity. That is why they are called sons of God. The divine family is extended.

There is one Father but the sons of God are of the same “species” as the begetting Father. Cats beget cats. Horses beget horses. The son of a zebra is a zebra. The son of a human is a human. The sons of God are God.

So yes, in the salvation, the saved become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Jesus was God by way of incarnation. The disciples in eternity are God by way of God imparting His life into many sons of God as His extension and family.

What is a son of a begetting God? If a man begets a man then what does God beget? God, like every other kind of life begets that which is His “species” or His kind. So sons of God are of the “species” and family of God.

Greek Orthodoxy has taught divinization for centries. And deification of the saved has been taught in both the eastern and western branch of Christianity.

So in the New Testament the only begotten Son of God is eventually also called the Firstborn Son of God. First implies others to follow. The whole family is of the class God.

***********************
See verse 28: If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to
the Father; for the Father is greater than I. God is greater than
Himself? That's nonsensical.
***************************

This is touching the Trinity. I cannot explain the eternal life to the fullest. Human reasoning and human language are limited to utter the how of this matter. That is why we are taught to believe and to receive and to enjoy even though we cannot fully explain.

If you ask me how can this be that question is too hard for me. But God expressed Himself as a man under submission to the Father. So there is a human aspect of Him and a divine and eternal aspect of Him united in one Person.

Do you think that you have more insight into the teachings of Jesus then His disciple John? Do you think you should have been there to rebuke John for writing that the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD? Do you wish that you were there to correct John with your clearer and better understanding of the teaching of Jesus?

I think John’s prologue and his record of all the words and deeds of Jesus are the indication the world must take of what Jesus said and meant. I don’t think John needs to sit at your feet and correct the impression he left us with that Jesus is the living Word of God – God become a man.

**********************************
The carrying of the baby Jesus by the virgin woman is not the same as the human spirit, soul, and body of the Son of Man containing God and expressing God in life.

It isn't the same because you prefer your reading. But this alternate
reading fits just as well (if not better, since the womb was most
certainly a housing). But, of course, you don't think Mary is God.
*********************************

What Mary speaks and what Jesus speaks are worlds apart. So you cannot nullify what Jesus speaks for the sake of watering down His relationship with the Father to be the same as the woman carrying the baby Jesus in her physical womb for nine months. Both are marvelous. But nothing in Mary’s recorded words is equal to what Jesus taught. And her deeds do not match those of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.


continued ...

************************
”The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?

Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple” (John 8:57-59)

This particular passage is exceptionally damning to your claim, if you
consider verse 42: Jesus said to [the Jews] -- If God were your Father,
you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not
come on my own, but he sent me.

In this particular case, Jesus is making a clear distinction between
Himself and God, as is clear.
*****************************

I said there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. I said they are no separated. There is the co-inherance. Where one lives the other lives. Each lives within the other.

This is why the Apostle Paul says that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily. He did not say one third of the fulness. He said ”all of the fulness:”

”For in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:19)

”For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9)

This is consistent with the fact that Jesus said the Father was in Him and He was in the Father. And it is consistent with Him teaching that the Son of Man is the house of God.

The passages about Jesus saying the Father was greater than He and that He came not to do His will but the Father’s, taken with the other passages, show us the mingling of God with man.

God expresses Himself as a man under the authority of God. These passages are not a matter of Jesus being a man but not God. These passages are a matter of Jesus being God as being expressed as a man under the authority of the Father.

The union is so complete and so thorough and so extensive and far reaching that man cannot believe without God opening his eyes. This is not my excuse. This is the direct teaching of Jesus:

”And He said, For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been given to him from the Father” (John 6:65)

***********************
This and the following is all extrapolation based on an a priori
assumption.
***************************

What you call a prior assumption is what I call the prologue written by the apostle John in his gospel.

The Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word Who was God became flesh and tabernacled among us.

You expect me to think John needs to sit are your feet and get clarification on the Master’s words. You call his prologue “a prior assumption”. I reject this.



***********************
How many times have you heard someone say 'My God?' And,
frankly, seeing a person risen from the dead would be enough for
anyone to say such a thing, even an observant Jew.
***********************

He didn’t just say “My God!” He said “My Lord and my God.”

John included that in his gospel to confirm his prologue as a review of what his Master taught. He was God become flesh and tabernacling among men.

************************
Did St Thomas (my Biblical hero, by the way) believe that Jesus was
a remarkable individual? Yes. Did he believe that Jesus was the
Chosen One of God. Yes.

Note before (verse 21), Jesus says: as the Father sent me, so I send
you. Does that make the Disciples God? Of course not.
***************************

We don’t have as many of the words of Thomas as we do of John in the New Testament canon.

But John identifies the Son and the Father as God and the eternal life:

”And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 1:20)

This verse says that the Father and the Son are the true God and eternal life.

Look at it carefully. ”… the Son of God has come … we might know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. THIS …. Is the TRUE GOD … and eternal life.”

The Father and the Son are the True God and eternal life.

Then John’s last verse after this is verse 21:

”Little children, guard yourselves from idols”

Anything that replaces the Father and the Son in whom the believers are in as the true God and the eternal life that they live, is an idol.

So we are to be in the Triune God and live the eternal life, to live God, and to guard against anything that replaces or usurpts the preeminence of the true God in our hearts. We are to be in Him and live in Him as our divine realm and sphere.

Originally posted by whodey
So the burden of justification is always on the person who makes any positive claim and not a negative claim? Try saying that in a court of law after you have defamed anothers reputation by expousing negative untruths about them. At least you see one truth, however, the theist holds claim to the postitive and the atheist holds claim to the negative. That w ...[text shortened]... r to hold on to the positive claim. I suppose the atheist will always see the glass half empty.

Originally posted by jaywill
************************
”The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?

Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple” (John 8:57-59)

This particular passage is exceptionally d ...[text shortened]... he true God in our hearts. We are to be in Him and live in Him as our divine realm and sphere.

You are going to defeat any argument by attrition. I can't possibly continue to respond the
the volumes that you seem inclined to write on a topic that requires a sentence or two.

Originally posted by jaywill
You’re quite wrong though the words “I am Bethel” are not read there the analogy is sufficient.

There is no reason to make the analogy there and not, say, with Mary except that you have
a predetermined position about the issue. In fact, with Mary it makes more sense.

Whose life was in the temple of the physical body of the man Jesus?

The life of God, of course. Just like the life of God was in the Disciples (as I quoted above)
and just like it is in you, me and everyone.

Do He did not leave His Father in heaven and receive instructions from far away. The Father had not left Him alone but was with Him and worked from within Him. So He is indeed the living human dwelling of God.

A vessel? Yes. A mediator? Yes. The mouth through which God speaks? Yes. The Biblical
authors agree with this. That He was God, the Biblical authors do not say (though you are
wise to use St John, because, as the latest Gospel to be written, his theology is definitely
advancing to that point).

The hand of the Son and the hand of Father are one. This is because He and the Father are one. It is the Son’s hand of love. And it is the Father's hand of power. They are distinct but they are not separate.

Wait a second. That's not what Jesus said. He said no one can take it out of Jesus's hand because
God, the Father, gave Him that authority. God gave Himself something? That's nonsense.
Jesus says that He and the Father are one because the Father acts through Him, just like He calls
His Disciples to do (refer to St John 14:20, again -- ...I am in my Father and you are in me and
I am in you).

You cannot equivocate on this issue -- either the Disciples are God because Jesus (as God) is in
them, or the saying that God is in someone isn't equivalence.

”For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, … I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it again. This commandment I receive from My Father.

You forgot verse 18b: This command I have received from my Father. Again, dichotomy between
God and Jesus clearly made. Yes, Jesus had Divine Authority, but because the Father gave it to
Him or gave Him a command.

I take it that you do not believe in the triune nature of God. I take it that you do not believe that the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

You are reading too much into me here. I am not saying that I do or do not believe it. I am
saying the Bible doesn't articulate such a position, that it was a development of the later Church.

And He clearly, as the Son of God, tells Philip in chapter 14 that he who has seen Him has seen the Father. And when Philip asks to be shown the Father Jesus refers to the fact that He has been with them for so long and yet Philip still does not recognize Him.

I covered this above. You can see God in all sorts of thing (or at least, I hope you do). I see God
in the majesty of a thunderstorm, or in the gentleness of a cat's purr, or in the wonder of the music
of Bach. That doesn't make these things God. Jesus was stating that He was a reflection of
the Father and that Philip should have known -- and intimately -- the Father through that reflection.

So it is paradoxical. But we should receive all the statements of Jesus and not try to nullify one group of sayings with another class of sayings. Taken all together Christ is God incarnate as a man. The Father and the Son are distinct but they are not separate.

Indeed, it is. The conclusion that the authors of the Gospels and St Paul didn't think that Jesus
was God is the only non-paradoxical one, because even St John constantly divides Jesus as the
commanded and the Father as the Commander, having Jesus's doing the will of God as per Divine
Dictate.

I have every reason to believe that the disciple John was clear about what Jesus taught. He was a sent apostle whose words Jesus expected us to receive. And John opens His gospel that the Word was with God and was God. The Word that was God became flesh. That would mean that God became a man.

Why do you think that St John wrote it? Nothing in the Gospel would force you to draw that
conclusion. Indeed, according to this gospel, the 'Beloved Disciple' was present at the Crucifixion,
yet in 19:35 says 'An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is
speaking the truth...' That doesn't make sense; if St John were the writer, he would have no need
of eyewitnesses for this particular event. Indeed, the only reason the writer would have need of
an eyewitness is because he wasn't present at the event.

Indeed, the first time the Gospel gets attributed to St John was by St Irenaeus in the second
century.

Do you think St Thomas wrote the Gospel attributed to him? I'm sure you don't.

So, why you would give weight to an attribution given over 50 years after the gospel was written
(and over 100 after Jesus's death)?

I have to reject any suggestion that John is not as enlightened about what Jesus taught as you are.

No. I would say the author had a very good and precise sense of who Jesus was, with a Gnostic
twist. That you are imposing deification upon Jesus when St John's Gospel clearly doesn't
articulate a position is the twisting of words.

Eventually the saved disciples, every one of them become God not in His Godhead as the unique Father. But they become God as the expansion of God into humanity. That is why they are called sons of God. The divine family is extended.

There is one Father but the sons of God are of the same “species” as the begetting Father. Cats beget cats. Horses beget horses. The son of a zebra is a zebra. The son of a human is a human. The sons of God are God.

Whoa. Are you Mormon or something? The term 'Godhead' is a non-Biblical convention, by the
way. And, there is nothing in the Bible to exclude the idea that the Divine Family was merely
'The Father' until He adopted 'The Son.' Taking this position for a moment, then all believers, like
Jesus, are the adopted sons and daughters of God.

Greek Orthodoxy has taught divinization for centries. And deification of the saved has been taught in both the eastern and western branch of Christianity.

You have gravely misunderstood the Easter Church if you believe that deification means becoming
God. It is heretical (from the Orthodox perspective) to believe that a created being can become
God. Deification (called theosis in the Eastern Church) is the process by which the sinful become
holy and like unto God, but not God Himself.

So in the New Testament the only begotten Son of God is eventually also called the Firstborn Son of God. First implies others to follow. The whole family is of the class God.

Actually, what St Paul says in Colossians 1:15 is that Jesus is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation. This is very telling of St Paul's perspective; if God is
uncreated and eternal, then the firstborn of all creation is by necessity not God. That St
Paul prefaces this by saying that Jesus was the image of God again indicates division between
the two entities.

This is touching the Trinity. I cannot explain the eternal life to the fullest. Human reasoning and human language are limited to utter the how of this matter. That is why we are taught to believe and to receive and to enjoy even though we cannot fully explain.

Well, just because you are taught doesn't mean what you were taught was right. And if you are
taught to believe it without questioning it, then you had a lousy teacher. St Paul's authentic
writings (which are the earliest texts of the NT) are pretty clear about his position: Jesus was
distinct from God -- a mediator, God's preordained chosen One.

Incidentally, there is precisely one Trinitarian formula in the New Testament. I won't spoil your
fun pointing it out, though.

Originally posted by jaywill
I said there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. I said they are no separated. There is the co-inherance. Where one lives the other lives. Each lives within the other.

It makes no sense to say 'I came from myself' and 'I sent myself.' The distinction is not about
facets of personality, the distinction Jesus is making is necessarily one of separation. Otherwise,
He simply could have said, 'I am God.'

Think about it. It would have been so easy to clear this up, but instead He makes constant
distinctions. You choose to make St John's carefully constructed words to mean something that
would have been simple to write: Jesus = God. Yet, St John didn't write this. Instead,
Jesus is constantly saying 'God, the Father sent me...' or 'God, the Father commanded me.'

The passages about Jesus saying the Father was greater than He and that He came not to do His will but the Father’s, taken with the other passages, show us the mingling of God with man.

You are conveniently dividing the passages into 'Jesus the Man' and 'Jesus the God' and attributing
meaning this way. Yet, there is no reason to do this except that you insist that St John believed
that Jesus was God (which he never says and never articulates). By contrast, if you take the
position that St John didn't have this belief, the passages make sense of their own accord, as written.

cont...

The union is so complete and so thorough and so extensive and far reaching that man cannot believe without God opening his eyes. This is not my excuse. This is the direct teaching of Jesus:

”And He said, For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been given to him from the Father” (John 6:65)

The 'secret decoder ring' defense doesn't have a lot of merit to me. I could assert that Satan has
closed your eyes to the truth and God has opened mine just as easily.

The Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word Who was God became flesh and tabernacled among us.

You expect me to think John needs to sit are your feet and get clarification on the Master’s words. You call his prologue “a prior assumption”. I reject this.

No. I think (the author of the Gospel of) St John wrote carefully and his words need to be heeded
to of their own merit, not with prior assumptions. The word for 'The Word' is logos in Greek
and connotes a specific philosophical notion. It doesn't mean 'The Books of the Bible' like it has
sadly come to mean over time, but a complicated metaphysical concept which is summed up in
the word logos. The logos was, truly, in existence from the beginning of time, it was
God and God was it. And then it was enfleshed (a better way of understanding the Greek, I think).
That which was logos was God in Jesus the man, just like the logos within you is God.
That doesn't entail that Jesus was God; indeed, John's Jesus seems keen to make this point
repeatedly: God is in me and I am in God and not I am God and God is me.

He didn’t just say [b]“My God!” He said “My Lord and my God.”[/b]

Well, it was a pretty big deal, no? Maybe the 'My Lord' was to Jesus's being alive and the
'My God' was to His appearing in a room with a locked door.

”And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 1:20)

(It's from chapter 5, by the way.)

I'm growing weary of putting singular verses in context. Note verses 9b and following:
Now the testimony of God is this, that he has testified on behalf of his Son...Whoever does not
believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son. And
this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Again, clear divisions between God and Son, clear hierarchy. Verse 13 continues this line of thought:
I write these things so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name
of the Son of God.

Again, St John could have written '...you who believe that Jesus is God,' but he elects not to do so.

Earlier, in chapter 4:7, St John writes: Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God;
everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Verse 16b-17 reads: God is love, and those
who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in
this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.

This especially gives us the backdrop for the penultimate verse (5:20) you cited: This love (agape)
is God, the True God, and Jesus (as far as St John was concerned) was the perfect reflection of that
love in the world. Christians, then, have a perfect, unerring model for Love (that is, God!) in the
actions of the man Jesus.

I've mentioned it before: when you pick single lines out of the Bible out of the blue, you can basically
make it say anything. But you need to read within the context of the document in question and
do so without applying the dogmas that evolved later if you want to get at what the author was
trying to say.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
So don't just assume stuff. Bring to me a Moslem who said she knows Allah and we then have a basis of comparison.

Originally posted by jaywill
The faith is not dying out. It is growing and spreading all the time. We see people turning from not knowing Christ to knowing Christ.

Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]The union is so complete and so thorough and so extensive and far reaching that man cannot believe without God opening his eyes. This is not my excuse. This is the direct teaching of Jesus:

”And He said, For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been given to him from the Father” (John 6:65)

The 'secret decoder rin d later if you want to get at what the author was
trying to say.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
The 'secret decoder ring' defense doesn't have a lot of merit to me. I could assert that Satan has closed your eyes to the truth and God has opened mine just as easily.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why do Christians still insist on trying to preach to us all the time when they have no hope of getting past Satans blockade?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are going to defeat any argument by attrition. I can't possibly continue to respond the
the volumes that you seem inclined to write on a topic that requires a sentence or two.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]You’re quite wrong though the words “I am Bethel” are not read there the analogy is sufficient.

There is no reason to make the a se of their own accord, as written.

cont...[/b]