₦airaland Forum

erniok:
the septuagint is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew bible. The translators couldn't comprehend what the prophet was saying in that verse and chose to translate what they wanted. It was too much for them to believe that God was coming in human form.

Read Daniel's prophecy about the son of man that Jesus also called himself.

🤣 "The translators couldn't comprehend what the prophet was saying in that verse and chose to translate what they wanted"

Do you agree that in the masoretic text what is written is NAME not nameS so how come the list of names or which of them is the name in your translations?

Okay Daniel's prophecy about the son of man and I read, Dan.7.13 -14, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

plessis:
What then did christ mean in the scripture John 10:34?

if you can tell us what did Christ mean and why he said this

John.10.36 why do you call it blasphemy when the Holy One who was sent into the world by the Father says, 'I am the Son of God'?

John.17.3 And this is the way to have eternal life--to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

AngelahFlo:
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND NOT GOD THE SON

I beg to differ on this. Jesus is both the Son of God and God the Son. This is a truth that only the Spiritually minded will grasp.

lol spiritual truth, truth is true, God never lied, Jesus never lied but men do and they lied to you about some so call spiritual truth that are actually "deep secrets of Satan"

What did God reveal to Peter, that Jesus is the Christ son of the living God and not another God or the same God or anything you wish to imply by your spiritually mind

AngelahFlo:
Don't say things you don't know much about and stop saying things against the man of God. Whatever he is, let the God who called him be the judge of that. Aiight.

who called who, where you there when he was called?
who told you he is a man that is sent by God?

Anyway, he taught and teaches what is false, so he is a false teacher.

Jesus is not God and there is only one God, the Father of Jesus who is the son of God and son or sons of God never meant God

WantsandMore:
Son of God doesn't mean someone born by God in a literal sense. "Son of God" means God in human flesh. So, when Jesus said He was the Son of God, the Jewish people around him understood exactly what He meant. They were angry because they recognized that "Son of God" signifies God becoming a human being.


This is debatable.
Mathew 24:36
Mathew 18:26
…………………….
How do you justify the above verses?

if Jesus knew the Jews really understood what he said why did he then bother explaining the truth to them? They avoid this truth


Instead those people to listen to Jesus they choose to listen to the people who wanted to kill him (Luke.11.48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs.)

erniok:
The jews knew that God was coming in human flesh because it is in their scriptures. Study the scriptures.

Why not share said scriptureS

By the way, hope you know what the septuagint is
Isa 9:6 LXX2012UK For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

When false teachers like chris oyakinlome tell that because Jesus is the son of God he is God and tells you to be like him, he is telling you be God as well and that's not what Jesus and the apostles taught

gohf:
ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Grok not only interpreted by stated roles

Literal Translation
"But as many as received him, he gave to them authority to become children of a deity, to those trusting in his name, who were born not from bloods, nor from the will of flesh, nor from the will of a man, but from a deity. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only one from a father, full of grace and truth."


Roles in Context

Building on the prior text’s roles

(ὁ Λόγος, τὸν Θεόν, Ἰωάνης):ὁ Λόγος (the Word):

Role: A divine-natured entity that becomes embodied and enables transformation.

Details: Grants "authority to become children of a deity" to those who "receive" him and "trust in his name," suggesting influence over human transformation or status.

Becomes "flesh" (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), taking on a physical or human form.

Dwells "among us" (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν), indicating presence among humans.

Displays "glory" (δόξαν), likened to that of a "unique one from a father," characterized by "grace and truth."



τὸν Θεόν/θεοῦ (the deity/a deity):

Role: The divine source or origin, associated with ὁ Λόγος and human transformation.

Details:Previously described as distinct from ὁ Λόγος (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) and the source of John’s mission (παρὰ Θεοῦ).
Here, the source from which "children" are born (ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν), indicating a divine origin for those who receive ὁ Λόγος.

New Group: Those Who Received the Word:

Role: Humans who accept ὁ Λόγος and gain a new status.

Details:Those who "receive" (ἔλαβον) and "trust in his name" (πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) are given "authority to become children of a deity" (τέκνα θεοῦ).

Their "birth" is not from physical means ("bloods," "will of flesh," "will of a man"wink but from a deity (ἐκ θεοῦ), suggesting a transformative process.

Will those who receive a different form or type of logos described in this text also be transformed? A simple yes or no if possible

No

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Grok not only interpreted by stated roles

Literal Translation
"But as many as received him, he gave to them authority to become children of a deity, to those trusting in his name, who were born not from bloods, nor from the will of flesh, nor from the will of a man, but from a deity. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only one from a father, full of grace and truth."


Roles in Context

Building on the prior text’s roles

(ὁ Λόγος, τὸν Θεόν, Ἰωάνης):ὁ Λόγος (the Word):

Role: A divine-natured entity that becomes embodied and enables transformation.

Details: Grants "authority to become children of a deity" to those who "receive" him and "trust in his name," suggesting influence over human transformation or status.

Becomes "flesh" (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), taking on a physical or human form.

Dwells "among us" (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν), indicating presence among humans.

Displays "glory" (δόξαν), likened to that of a "unique one from a father," characterized by "grace and truth."



τὸν Θεόν/θεοῦ (the deity/a deity):

Role: The divine source or origin, associated with ὁ Λόγος and human transformation.

Details:Previously described as distinct from ὁ Λόγος (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) and the source of John’s mission (παρὰ Θεοῦ).
Here, the source from which "children" are born (ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν), indicating a divine origin for those who receive ὁ Λόγος.

New Group: Those Who Received the Word:

Role: Humans who accept ὁ Λόγος and gain a new status.

Details:Those who "receive" (ἔλαβον) and "trust in his name" (πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) are given "authority to become children of a deity" (τέκνα θεοῦ).

Their "birth" is not from physical means ("bloods," "will of flesh," "will of a man"wink but from a deity (ἐκ θεοῦ), suggesting a transformative process.

Okay so please from that text can we say that the logos is God or a god or the same with the God?

Addressing the Question: Is ὁ Λόγος "God," "a god," or "the same as the God"?

Let’s evaluate each possibility based on the Greek text:

Is ὁ Λόγος "God" (as a proper noun or specific deity, i.e., τὸν Θεόν)?The phrase ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("the Word was with the deity" implies distinction between ὁ Λόγος and τὸν Θεόν. The preposition πρὸς suggests a relational proximity (e.g., being "with" or "alongside" rather than identity. If the author intended to say ὁ Λόγος is τὸν Θεόν (the specific deity), a direct equation like ὁ Λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεός or a different construction would be expected.

The clause Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος does not use the definite article with Θεὸς, suggesting a qualitative description ("divine" rather than identifying ὁ Λόγος as the specific deity (τὸν Θεόν). Thus, ὁ Λόγος is not presented as identical to "God" (i.e., τὸν Θεόν, the deity referenced).

Is ὁ Λόγος "a god"?

Translating Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible, as Θεὸς can mean "a god" or "deity" in Greek, especially in polytheistic or philosophical contexts where multiple divine beings are considered.

HOWEVER, the anarthrous Θεὸς in this construction typically emphasizes quality over individuality. Saying "a god" implies a separate divine entity, which could align with the distinction suggested by πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, but it risks implying a lesser or independent deity, which the text does not explicitly support.

The context of the passage, with ὁ Λόγος being "with the deity" (τὸν Θεόν) and described as Θεὸς (divine), suggests ὁ Λόγος shares divine qualities rather than being a distinct "god" in the sense of a separate divine being. The philosophical use of Λόγος (e.g., in Stoicism or Platonism) often portrays it as a principle or force, not a standalone deity.

Conclusion

Based on the Greek text’s syntax and vocabulary:

Not "God" (as τὸν Θεόν): ὁ Λόγος is not presented as identical to τὸν Θεόν (the specific deity). The use of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν and the qualitative Θεὸς indicate distinction, with ὁ Λόγος being "with" the deity and sharing divine qualities, not being the deity itself.


Not clearly "a god": While Θεὸς could be translated as "a god," the anarthrous construction and context suggest a qualitative sense ("divine" rather than portraying ὁ Λόγος as a separate divine entity. The philosophical tone leans toward Λόγος as a principle with divine attributes, not a distinct "god."

Not "the same as the God": The text explicitly distinguishes ὁ Λόγος from τὸν Θεόν through πρὸς and the structure, ruling out identity.

The author portrays ὁ Λόγος as a distinct entity, existing in the beginning, in close relation to τὸν Θεόν (the deity), and possessing divine qualities (Θεὸς, "divine".

The best translation, as previously provided, is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the deity, the Word was divine. This was in the beginning with the deity." This reflects ὁ Λόγος as divine in nature but not identical to τὸν Θεόν.

JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND NOT GOD THE SON

Steep:
Notice how she dodges questions by bringing up irrelevance.
Since Jesus is the one Lord does that mean the father is not Lord. So according to your own words, the christian woman has two Lords, which are christ and her husband?

even you, steep especially you, won't understand a simple YES but that's the answer YES

Janosky:
I'm stating the dictionary meaning of the word "transcendental."
From your observation, I now understand that her own meaning of that expression is entirely different from the dictionary explanation.

Thank you Sir.

dictionary meaning is to surpass to superceded to rise above or climb beyond limits, is that not the same dictionary meaning everywhere

Janosky:
"By means of" OR "THROUGH," convey the same meaning.

which one is "by means of" did I write that in that post?

Chibuezem:
That’s a really good and thoughtful question 👌

The statement you made — “God in 3 persons means God is in those 3 persons…” — is actually a common way people try to understand the Trinity, but it’s a bit different from what Christian theology teaches. Let me unpack it clearly:

1. God is not something that “indwells” 3 persons

It’s not that “God” is like a spirit that lives inside the Father, Son, and Spirit. That would make “God” a fourth thing beyond the three — which is not the teaching.

2. Each person is fully God

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.
They don’t merely have God in them — they each are God by nature, sharing the one divine essence.

when you share one divine essence to 3 persons it becomes 3 divine essences. God blessed us with intelligence and wisdom for us to be reasoning this absurdly. You said them having God means God is a fourth being but here you are calling God and essence they share

3. But they are not three separate Gods

This is where the mystery comes in. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. Yet, they are one God, not three gods.

Oga even confusion sounds mysterious

4. How theologians phrase it

One essence (or nature), three persons.

Not “three beings with God inside them,” but “one Being, shared fully and equally by three distinct persons.”

SHARED, so these three persons divided God up or God divided Himself into 3 persons. Oga they are either 3 God's or each 1/3rd a God so which is it? Did God multiply himself or did He divide Himself

So the difference is subtle but important:

Your statement leans toward tritheism (3 beings indwelt by God).

The doctrine of the Trinity is one God in three persons.

subtlety is what Satan is good at, even a triangle is described as one shape with three lines and everyone knows that each line is not a shape until the author of confusion gets in

💡 A simpler way:

Think of “God” not as a fourth person inside them, but as the divine essence that each of the three persons fully possesses.

I can explain further 😘

lol and your simpler way self contradicts your original point that God ain't a fourth person or fourth existence yet here you are saying what I have stated, they 3 fully possess God,... yet you wanted to deny that 🤣🤣😂🤣😂

Janosky:
God is transcendental (meaning "relating to spiritual realm" ) factually correct.

Genesis 1;1, " in the beginning God created the heaven (spiritual realm first) & the earth (physical realm thereafter)". Job 38:1-7 confirmed that.

However, she doesn't seem to realize that Hebrew 1:6A & Romans 8:3 conflicted with her claims.

" God brings Jesus his first born (in the spiritual realm) into the world of men (in the physical realm ) in the likeness of men.

Julia25 doesn't realize that the concept of firstborn began in the spiritual realm.

it isn't factually correct. God isn't transcendental, God is God, he didn't transcend anything or anyone, or from anywhere to become God.

She said God transcended I asked her from where did God transcend and she couldn't answer

Chibuezem:
Yes God is one in three persons 😍


If you like sing your opinion from January to December, use Ai and go to the Tibetan monks for spiritual guidance you cannot falsify the truth which is..... God in three persons 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙏🎉❤️

one in 3 persons means 1 out of every 3 persons

God in 3 persons means God is in those 3 persons, so God isn't a person but indwells in three persons who I believe you mean Father son and Spirit these three persons have God in them? Right?

Chibuezem:
1 John 5:7 KJV - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

thank God that's not all that John wrote even though it's some people's favorite quote

They are ALL ONE IN TESTIMONY, ALL THREE ARE WITNESSES not gods

Ken4Christ:
Don't mind him. Jesus is God in the flesh. The Father is God in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father and he also called the Spirit of Christ.

Jesus being God in the flesh, I take it you mean he was God in a flesh or are you saying his whole being was God

Or are you saying Jesus was the Holy one who had the Father in him, who had God in him.

You say he Father is God in the Spirit whereas Jesus said God is spirit or are you saying God is God while in the spirit and Jesus is God while in the flesh.

Now is that Spirit that the Father is God in, not the Holy Spirit or a different spirit?

Steep:
Paul also said there is one Lord, Jesus christ does that mean the father is not Lord.

even husbands are Lord

Afterall Paul also wrote the head of the woman is her husband and the head of the husband is Christ and the head of Christ is God 😊

Steep:
why is it so hard for you?
If something existed at the start of something does it mean the thing came into existence at the start. If a mother existed at the beginning of her child's birthday does that mean the mother was born at her child's birthday?

Let me make it more simpler ask grok if the word came into existence or he simply was already there?

Don't give me long story. Type it word for word and give me answer.

everyone who read the Bible knows that the word of God is eternal, it existed before the creation of our world and like Grok puts it, it's God's agent and means it creation.

Did the word of God come into creation? Yes the word became flesh

And it is not OR, but an the word was already present when the world was made.

Is it hard for you to understand that God brought forth his word and sent forth his word.

Lol soon you will want me to ask Grok how God used the word to create everything and where was God before everything was made.

Steep:
That is not what I asked you. You see that you are not sincere, show that chat where you asked grok if Jesus came into existence in the beginning or was already there in the beginning.
Yes the word existed in the beginning that is is not the question, the question is if the word came into creation or the word was already present why is this too hard for you?

guy I will keep telling you repent, you don't even see your own deceptions. You haven't changed because you haven't genuinely repented

This is exactly what you wrote Ask grok to do an unbiased analysis of "In the beginning was the word" using the greek interlinear to determine if the word was created at the beginning or already existed at the beginning.

Image123:
So somehow, God forgot to tell humans and angels to worship Moses, judges, and gods (idols) but commands worship for Jesus Christ. Isn't God wonderful?

Jesus is anointed king and Lord over all expect God, and all are commanded to worship him. Every knee shall bow and say that Jesus Christ is lord

Steep:
I don't think you understand what I wrote. Grok has already confirmed to you that Jesus is divine by nature mean he is God by nature. I asked you to focus on christ pre-existence at creation.
Ask grok to do an unbiased analysis of "In the beginning was the word" using the greek interlinear to determine if the word was created at the beginning or already existed at the beginning. Come back and let me know the answer from grok.

If you read you would have realized Grok already did that. But since it's you steep let me just restate:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ (en archē): A prepositional phrase meaning "in the beginning" or "at the start." ἀρχή denotes the origin or initial point of something.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος: This sets the temporal context ("in the beginning" and states that ὁ Λόγος (the Word/Reason) existed at that time. The author is stating that the word existed at the start.

Syntactic Structure:
The first clause, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("In the beginning was the Word", establishes the temporal existence of the Word

Steep:
It is you that cannot tell the difference according to grok the trinity was a doctrine that was derived from the activity of God ( meaning his activity as father Son and Holy Spirit) in the bible so in other words grok actually could analyze that God acts in three distinct persons.
The only difference between grok and the doctrine of the trinity is that God is not just acting as three persons but he IS three persons.

according to Grok, which grok? Steep you still read like this?

TenQ:
Is this story even remotely TRUE?
Why?
Abraha, the Abyssinian was not a prophet nor a magician, can you explain HOW he succeeded in Bringing an Army of Elephants into the Arabian Desert?




Note:
Elephants cannot survive in deserts as they need lots of water for drinking and cooling themselves

Also
An adult elephant typically needs to drink between 100 to 200 liters (about 25 to 50 gallons) of water per day for drinking in cool regions and double the amount in hot climates. They also need to drink 2 to 3 times a day.

Cc: All Muslims
Antichristian
Honesttalk21
Gaskiyamagana
Lukuluku69 ,
mhmsadyq
AbuTwins
Explore2xmore


Isn't this tales of the ancients indeed?

😂 great point

DoctorStanley:
You can also only call your dad daddy without asking his name. Which is what Muslims do. Moses, on the other hand, asked YHWH his name

Moses asked clearly to differentiate Him from other gods, which should be obvious to anyone aware of many gods except they didn't feel the need to do such.

Tenq what do you think?

Steep:
Even A.I tells you that the doctrine of the trinity is rooted in the activity of God in New testament.
According to A.I the doctrine of the trinity does not contradict the laws of logic. Ofcourse you ride on emotion not logic.
A.i says doctrine of the trinity is biblical and does not contradict the laws of logic.
One God three persons.

you can't tell the difference between activity and appearances. God acting through his son, acting through his spirit is different from appearing as a son or a spirit

Steep:
You still has more work to do. Ask grok to give to the greek interlinear of John 1:1. Now the focus for now should be what is the must accurate rendition of "In the beginning was the word" does it mean the word was created or came into existence in the beginning or the word and what is the implications of this.

before asking me this did you read the conversation

https://www.nairaland.com/8506184/chat-grok-ai-cofirms-gospel#136586259

https://x.com/i/grok/share/1vuwUxMU9D48QKyY9sP5RHEiU

If you haven't go and read it

Boomark:
Calling Jesus a God is not a problem because he was called a mighty God in Isaiah 9:6-7. Even an idol was called "Unknown God." Jesus knew there are many Gods and that was why he called the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD.



They are Gods because they are judges. It is now left for people to know that they have one God who is the Father. They are on their own if they believe anything different from this. That one God is the Father.

https://www.nairaland.com/8486945/bible-challenge-trinity-boomark-image123/7#136533366

it won't be a problem if he is a God by God's definition not by human definition because to humans there are many Gods, to pharaoh Moses was a god but not to the people of Israel.

Grok pointed something interesting out that the Jews called angels God, elohim and at times referred to them as YHVH but they never believed any of them to be the YHVH or the God but representatives of God. That's why Paul spoke about some in Colossians 2:18 that worshipped angels as God.

Like you said even judges and humans have been referred to as God, even Paul and Barnabas.

When Grok brought up the time Thomas said to Jesus my God and I asked him about Genesis 18, he did a cross reference of even more verses and said it was a Jewish cultural reference to address a divine being representing God as God or YHVH and none were ever corrected


Now for Isaiah 9:6-7, I don't know what Grok would say about this, but before there was AI I had septuagint version and their interpretation of that version is different and I have also pointed out in one of some threads a point no one has refuted that Isaiah was talking about a name not names, and the second point is having el in one's name doesn't make them God. Gabriel is similar to mighty+God or Elijah my God is YHVH, several names have el in them, doesn't make them God.

If you say Eli, which means my God, it doesn't mean I or the person referred to is a God. So the calling a name is not the problem as you said to me it is the commandments. You shall have no other God except me. The one true God. No images, don't take things you see in heaven and earth as a God, worship only God as God.

So while Jesus is worshipped Lord and anointed king like David was or more than David ever was, he is never worshipped as God, as creator.

Boomark:
They teach falsehood as doctrine. Let me see where he will get One God as 3 persons in the bible.

This is what the enemy is using against the position of God the Father so people will not give him glory that is due to him.

they are not the only ones, there's the oneness group as well that believe that the Father and the son are one and the same person

Just Google what is oneness gospel?

The "Oneness gospel" refers to Oneness Pentecostalism, a theological belief that God is one single, indivisible Spirit who manifests as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rather than three distinct co-equal persons in one God. Followers of this "Jesus Only" doctrine believe that titles like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely descriptive of God's different roles or manifestations in history, and that Jesus Christ is the full embodiment of the one God. This view contrasts with the Trinitarian doctrine of mainstream Christianity.