Jesus is Not 'The Word'

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bassil said:

We can't give titles to Jesus, not in a letteral sense or metaphorically, just because we think it's an appropriate title.

Titles are identifiers, names are identifiers.  Why is one allowed and not the other?

Jesus wasn’t his actual name, after all.

[Bassil]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You say we cannot give him titles

The introduction in the Book of John bears information (message). Which is:

The scriptures (The Old Testament) as God's word VS. Jesus as God's Word.

The author wanted to say that we can find God's words only when they come through Jesus' mouth.

Jesus is the only valid source of God's words.

[Bassil]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Titles are identifiers, names are identifiers.  Why is one allowed and not the other?

Jesus wasn’t his actual name, after all.

It's not about naming Jesus. The introduction in the Book of John bears information (message). Which is:

The scriptures (The Old Testament) as God's word VS. Jesus as God's Word.

The author wanted to say that we can find God's words only when they come through Jesus' mouth.

Jesus is the only valid source of God's words.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bassil said:

It's not about naming Jesus. The introduction in the Book of John bears information (message). Which is:

The scriptures (The Old Testament) as God's word VS. Jesus as God's Word.

The author wanted to say that we can find God's words only when they come through Jesus' mouth.

Jesus is the only valid source of God's words.

Please explain how you interpret this 

Quote

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

To get to 

Quote

The scriptures (The Old Testament) as God's word VS. Jesus as God's Word.

And then to

“we can find God's words only when they come through Jesus' mouth.”

——

If God’s words only come from Jesus’ mouth, then why should we trust the author of John?

Edited August 31, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Bassil said:

The introduction in the Book of John bears information (message). Which is:

The scriptures (The Old Testament) as God's word VS. Jesus as God's Word.

The author wanted to say that we can find God's words only when they come through Jesus' mouth.

Jesus is the only valid source of God's words.

Fine. That is your opinion and interpretation and I disagree.

Who wrote "the words of Jesus?"

Is "the author" infallible in memory? What else did Jesus say that was forgotten?

Who knows what Jesus actually said?

That's ok , just think about it, I do not have time to debate it.

Edited August 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Bassil]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please explain how you interpret this

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1: 18)

[Bassil]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Fine. That is your opinion, and I disagree.

Have a good life!

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1:18)

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Bassil said:

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1:18)

 

39 minutes ago, Bassil said:

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1:18)

First, I don't know what seeing God has to do with titles.

Second, it is a foundational LDS Doctrine that both the Father and Son appeared to Joseph Smith and others.

I will defer my replies to Calm.

She is much nicer than I am.

I wish you well in your faith journey!

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Bassil said:

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1: 18)

But that is the author of John, not Jesus.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Bassil said:

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1: 18)

I meant the process. I am seeing you post scriptures, but since I appear to interpret them differently than you do, how you are connecting them and the reasons for your conclusions aren’t clear to me, especially since you are saying we should only trust the words of Jesus based on the words of someone who was not Jesus. 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that is the author of John, not Jesus.

And the person John clearly DID see Jesus.  The ambiguity is just driving me crazy 

If Jesus is God, thousands have seen God during Jesus' ministry 

Good night- Mr. Calabash. 🙃

Edited August 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Bassil]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

First, I don't know what seeing God has to do with titles.

The only one explained God was Jesus. That was the point.

"

All who came before Me are thieves
and robbers ...

" (John, 10:8)

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Bassil said:

The only one explained God was Jesus. That was the point.

"

All who came before Me are thieves
and robbers ...

" (John, 10:8)

Old Testament?

Ok that's the end for me.

[Bassil]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that is the author of John, not Jesus.

True. I said that the author was delivering a message. And that message is: Jesus is the only source of God's words. And the proof was in verse 18.

"

No one has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him.

" (John, 1: 18)

[Bassil]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

I meant the process. I am seeing you post scriptures, but since I appear to interpret them differently than you do, how you are connecting them and the reasons for your conclusions aren’t clear to me, especially since you are saying we should only trust the words of Jesus based on the words of someone who was not Jesus.

I believe Jesus' words are only worth following. Those verses in John aren't my proof. It's about reading the author's mind to know what he wants to deliver. The author displays an analogy to explain the relationship between God and Jesus and to tell the reader that Jesus is the only valid source of God's words. But all Christians got is to name Jesus 'The word!'

 

[Smiley McGee]

delete

Edited September 1, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Smiley McGee]

11 hours ago, Sara H said:

I agree with you. None of us are. 

Is it “none of us are” or “none of us is”? Thought it was the latter, but am second guessing it. 
 

Any grammar DezNats in here who know?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bassil said:

It's about reading the author's mind to know what he wants to deliver….But all Christians got is to name Jesus 'The word!'

Reading living people’s minds is impossible, so reading dead people's minds must be more so.

So I assume you mean understanding what they are saying in the text given.  That raises the question why so many others got it so very wrong, but you got it right….possibly the only person to do so as I haven’t seen your interpretation before, but more likely you are not alone, it is just a very uncommon interpretation. (I am not being sarcastic here, I am trying to understand why you think as you do.)

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

5 hours ago, Bassil said:

I believe Jesus' words are only worth following. Those verses in John aren't my proof. It's about reading the author's mind to know what he wants to deliver. The author displays an analogy to explain the relationship between God and Jesus and to tell the reader that Jesus is the only valid source of God's words.

Imo what matters is that we follow the highest truth we know or have good reason to believe. It's not so much about following a book that claims to have the words of Christ. The Gospels are arguably the best written source we have of the words of Christ, but we do not know for sure how accurately the Gospels quote Christ. Some words attributed to him may not be accurate, and it's reasonable to assume that he said a great deal more than what we have a record of.

I think it would be a mistake to make a book the highest authority in our lives. Many people do so, and there are worse things that one can do, but I don't think such is necessarily the best course. The inner knowing which told you Christ is The Way – imo THAT is more reliable than any books we have. Imo that inner knowing is what we are to follow, and it should be the highest authority in our lives. And if we make a mistake, which will happen, we correct it and keep on going.

When your guide is that inner knowing, call it the Holy Spirit or whatever, THEN God can confirm to you things that are not found in the scriptural account of Christ's words. Imo God speaks to us through many voices, and while the actual words of Christ are the most pure transmission, they are not necessarily the only voice God can use.

In fact this concept is one of the things I like best about Mormonism – the idea that communication from God to us is ongoing. Our role is be seekers. And in a sense we are like radio stations, wherein our role is to stay tuned in to the station where God communicates to us through that inner knowing. This requires more consistent effort on our part than following a book requires.

Now it's not EITHER the Gospels OR the inner knowing – it's BOTH! But the inner knowing is how we recognize and fall in love with the truths found in the Gospels, and also it is how we can spot things in them which are questionable.  We progress when we are tuned-in to that inner knowing. 

In my opinion.

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Is it “none of us are” or “none of us is”? Thought it was the latter, but am second guessing it. 
 

Any grammar DezNats in here who know?

We had workers in the house and on the roof all day pounding away, so I am not going to try and parse out your usage myself.  Apparently it depends…

https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/singular-vs-plural/none-is-vs-none-are/

[Pyreaux]

18 hours ago, Bassil said:

The only one explained God was Jesus. That was the point.

"

All who came before Me are thieves
and robbers ...

" (John, 10:8)

Ah, this is all tied in with your opinion that the Old Testament (The Word from the beginning) isn't Jesus, or not representative of Jesus in the New Testament. That might be, I mentioned before how the Old Testament might have been tampered with by xenophobic Levite scribes that came back from Babylon, and rewrote some of the history about the genocides of the land of Israel to justify the schism of the Jews and Samaritans, and other things Jesus didn't seem to approve of.

As for John 10:8, Christ's words are thought to have excluded Abraham, Moses, the prophets, John the Baptist, from possibility being thieves and robbers, as we'd assume Christ meant all those he had 'not' sent, and he did send the prophets. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette and others accept the meaning of "before," as a point of time, and includes the entire corpus of Old Testament prophets and teachers and regards all their sayings as inconsistent with the gentleness of Christ.

Though the way Jesus keeps calling Himself "the door/gate", as a contrast to "All that ever came before" seems to mean "all before" are those professing to be themselves the door, to be the Mediator between man and God. By this, the Old Testament authors might be excluded, because they witnessed of the true door. The Levite scribes from Babylon who closed of the Old Testament canon, the Levite priestly caste replaced the prophets, claiming for themselves the position as the door to the kingdom of God, whose word was the word of God.

These usurpers' descendants, the Pharisees, stood round Jesus and decreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be the Messiah should be shut out from Temple and from synagogue, and that they themselves would in God's name pronounce a curse upon his head (John 9:22). As "thieves" and as "robbers;" by either stealing the followers of Christ or rending those who stayed true. He spoke of the lawyers (Levitical scribes of the Law of Moses) who closed the door and plundered and oppressed those they kept from the temple (Luke 11:52). How he whipped money changers for making the temple a "den of thieves" and let the lame and infirm into the temple where they had previously been kept out (Matthew 21:12-13).

Edited September 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, manol said:

Now it's not EITHER the Gospels OR the inner knowing – it's BOTH! But the inner knowing is how we recognize and fall in love with the truths found in the Gospels, and also it is how we can spot things in them which are questionable.  We progress when we stay tuned-in to that inner knowing. 

Scripture leads us to ask questions of the Spirit.

Which is why I don’t see a need for it to be infallible or even halfway in the ball park.  Scripture needs to raise passion and commitment and awe…and from what I see the Christian Bible, the Tanakh, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon and other modern LDS scripture do that.  Many other sacred texts not associated with the Torah do as well….though as a Christian and as a Saint I believe the Bible and our LDS scripture are the best at getting there with the least distractions and obstacles in general.  Distractions and obstacles might include believing the scriptures are something they are not and therefore spending time trying to promote or defend not useful principles, one of which is treating scripture like a science or history text instead of a religious one.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm

[Bassil]

7 hours ago, manol said:

but we do not know for sure how accurately the Gospels quote Christ. Some words attributed to him may not be accurate,

I agree. Having four Gospels instead of one helps in finding mistakes.

[Bassil]

7 hours ago, manol said:

The inner knowing which told you Christ is The Way – imo THAT is more reliable than any books we have. Imo that inner knowing is what we are to follow, and it should be the highest authority in our lives. And if we make a mistake, which will happen, we correct it and keep on going.

I agree. 🙂

[Bassil]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette and others accept the meaning of "before," as a point of time, and includes the entire corpus of Old Testament prophets and teachers and regards all their sayings as inconsistent with the gentleness of Christ.

I already liked this fellow. 🙂