₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Dude you didn't answer the question I asked.

Dude all Christians and non Christians have the same literal interpretation of the bible. That's what I'm saying.
All my argument on this thread is strictly literal interpretation of the scriptures. So all Christians will define the scriptures same way literally

As for exegesis, the interpretation may differ because that has to do with faith. But that's btw theist and that's not what I'm doing here.

For example, all Christians will interpret John 1.18 the same. Jesus is the son of God and that makes him God.
That's what the verse say- literal interpretation.

However, Christians may defer on the exegesis- what the verse actually meant when context is applied.
It doesn't matter if the Christian is a nairalander or not.

I rarely come here to debate Christian nairalanders including Unitarians who have a different doctrine of Jesus. So I don't know if they will disagree with me on my exegesis- I'm not here for that
I here to expose the ignorance of Muslims and atheist not Christians.

kkins25:
If only you'd read the text in the images you posted, you'd find that they actually support my post. I answered your Qs.. now answer mine from before.

I think u should do a bit more study on historical theology. You made so many assumptions here that cannot be backed by any substantial evidence.
I want to assume your argument is based on a book called Caesar's Messiah...if this is the case, I will advise u to read academic criticism of the book.

I can't remember any question or claim U brought up that I didn't shred to pieces here.

LordReed:
So any Christian who doesn't interpret the bible the same way you do is not a true Christian? Is that an inference that should be drawn from your statements?

BTW do you think there's any Christian that has been posting on NL that you think has the same interpretation of the bible as you have and who is that person?

11


There are ways u interpret the scriptures based on the hermeneutic phenomenology developed by the early church, and primarily related to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures. Each passage in Scripture is understood to have four meanings:

Literal: What the passage says about the narratives itself.
Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ
Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live
Anagogical/exegesis: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate

When I debate atheist, the only way I interpret the scriptures with them is literal. Exegesis has no meaning to U guys and the general consensus is that I guys base your conscience on subjective morality.

Liberal bible scholars also interpret the scripture strictly literally. Does the passage or verse actually meant what Christians claim or we are simply reading meaning to it.

If the bible say Jesus is the son of God and also God. That means the bible confirm jesus to be God. Simple.

Now exegetical interpretation may want to explain the verse another way e.g some may say the verse is claiming Jesus is a lesser god or Jesus is divine but not God....
But that's for theist to debate i.e people who actually believe in the bible.

For example all liberal bible scholars including academic Muslim scholars have admitted that if the gospel of John is true, then Jesus is definitely God.

White women have no right to complain about someone else breastfeeding their babies.
They forced black slave women to breastfeed their children during slavery. So that one no be talk.

Calling police on your sister is stupid and insensitive, there are long term repercussions for such acts. Cow milk can be replaced but not relationship. She should breastfeed her baby until she has money to buy cow milk, it's only temporary and she won't die.
Messing up your sister's record because of trivial issue is simply overboard. This could impact her abilit to get good jobs, mortgage, loan or even accessibility to credit.
Oyinbo women and their obsession with police is nauseating, they call police for everything. No wonder their community is becoming messed up.

Maynmann:
Checking the original Greek of john 1:1, what's the difference between Theo and Theon?

Remember, the word was WITH God(Theon).
The word THEN became theos not Theon.

John 17:3 (ESV), "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

It's more correct to even translate logos as reason rather than "word" 🙃

U this mad man is here again.

So I've always made this clear. All atheist who left Christianity did so because they don't understand Christianity. Not because they understood it and felt it doesn't make sense.

You cant say something doesn't make sense or it's false if u don't understand it. This is the case of virtually all atheist and none has disappointed me or disprove my theory. Their understanding of Christian theology is extremely poor.

Case in point is kkins25 who I debated if Peter actually said Jesus is God.
Kkins is of the opinion Peter never called Jesus God because Peter called Jesus the son of God. He also argued Peter used the title God for the Father. According to kkins, if Jesus is the son of God then he couldn't be God and Peter couldn't have called father and son (Jesus) God the same time.
From the above, it's obvious kkins had never studied the bible, didn't attend bible study class and knows nothing about christology/Christophany when he was a Christian. He did not have sound Christian doctrine b4 leaving the faith.
It's unfortunate his church failed him, his pastor failed him, his Christian community failed him. And for this, I apologise on their behalf for a soul is lost in the process.

You cant understand Christianity and then decide to leave. It's impossible. Jesus Christ is the TRUTH and once u KNOW HIM, U get stuck to the truth. It's an eternal union.

The day I meet an atheist or an ex Christian that fully understands Christianity and it's doctrine is the day I will renounce my faith.

I will leave u with this bible verse from John 1.18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

kkins25:
I hope you know that logos can be used in different contexts. So, saying you don't want to discuss John 1:1 which is the only place the logos was used to designate Jesus as a manifestation of God, shocks me.


Interesting. I did find that the Aramaic bible you speak of were translations done in an attempt to revert the hebrew bible to Aramaic and not the first iterations of the bible as you insinuate.

Writing down the targum was initially prohibited; nevertheless, some targumitic writings appeared as early as the middle of the first century AD. They were not recognized as authoritative by the religious leaders. Some subsequent Jewish traditions (beginning with the Babylonian Jews) accepted the written targumim as authoritative translations of the Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic. Today, the common meaning of targum is a written Aramaic translation of the Bible. Only Yemenite Jews continue to use the targumim liturgically.
---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum



In Hebrew, the places you mentioned used "Messenger of God."



The original Christians wouldn't understand what you're saying. They didn't know anything like Trinity. They mostly didn't speak Greek either, and mind you, LOGOS as seen in John 1:1 is purely a hellenized concept. Other instances of Logos tally with the hebrew equivalent of the word except in the case of John 1:1.



Whoever wrote the book of John must have been schooled in Greek. There's a common consensus that Jesus if he understood Greek, spoke very little of it. The same goes for his disciples. Even though Judea, Galilee, where Jesus was born, was probably bilingual, the Jews generally didn't speak it.

Even Josephus, who was learned in Greek, made blunders when he was translating and had to call Romans to assist. Therefore, John, Peter, James, etc couldn't have understood what Logos meant as used in John 1:1.

If the Logos was something the Jews where conversant with, then it doesn't make sense that the Jewish preist, the disciples of jesus would doubt his claims, right?

You are arguing using the bible as bases of historical event when the bible itself is what we are trying to dissect. It's like using the testimony of an alleged thief to judge a case. No, Sirtee, that's not how arguments are done. Use external sources, please.

FYI, there's a difference between biblical scholars and theologians. The latter are not very different from your pastors. If you want clarity, seek the biblical scholars.

What do U mean by Aramaic bible is irrelevant. As at the time of Jesus, few Jews could read and understand Hebrew exception being religious leaders.
The common people had to rely on translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to understand the bible.
The written form had memra replaced for the personhood of the LORD in Aramaic translation.
This was before Christianity and had nothing to do with greeco-roman influence.
So why did the Jews in 2nd temple period start using memra for God. That's my point.

What do U mean by Hebrew bible use messenger of God for the LORD. Stop capping bro, quit the lies. If u don't know something, either ignore or learn. U don't win all argument.
Check Hebrew bible verses for places it says memra in Aramaic translation. It never said messenger of God.

What do u mean by theologian? Is Bart Erhman a theologian? Do U know Bart Erhman? He's a core atheist as it comes.
I brought Bart Erhman here because he's the most popular liberal bible scholar and he's not a theologian. Pls read about him.

I'm happy to debate u the authorship of new testament writers starting with letters of Peter. That will be later in the day.

Both internal and external evidence of a book are used to validate claims in a book. Pls study textual criticism in the academic world.
It's funny u quoting the bible to debunk Christian claims but u don't want me to do the same. We not debating theology here, what we doing is bring up textual evidence to back my claim- this could be internal or external so long as it meets textual criticism criteria.

Finally, once again u don't know the bible enough. Reason U left.
How can u bring Peter's writing saying father is God to invalidate his claim that Jesus is not God.
Peter called Jesus a man in the book of acts. That doesn't mean Jesus can't be God.

That Jesus is the son of God is the main reason he's God. The question is do u know what the son of God means in the new testament. No u don't. because if u do U won't bring Jesus as the son of God as evidence of Jesus can't be God.
Do U even know Jesus was killed by the religious
leaders?

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e]

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.


18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Jesus couldn't have been God if he isn't the son of God. Do U get it now?

,

kkins25:
Same response as above. Anyway, let me help you small. They have different schools of thought. Incase, you want to mumble up that nonsense about Christ tarnishing the old law, I hope you know that was just Paul's way of getting the Gentiles to join Christianity. The likes of Peter, James, JOhn, etc, never did away with the old testament. Why? The new testament hadn't even being written bruv?

I think we should all agree u waffling here. Possibly because of your poor knowledge of the scriptures.
Only Muslims argue Paul was the one who told Christians not to follow the law which we all know is rubbish.

Jesus told his disciples to ignore the law of Sabbath.
Jesus told his disciples they need not follow the ceremonial dietary requirements.
He told his followers a man is only allowed to marry wife and must not divorce her except for adultery.
Jesus condemned those who wanted to stone an adulterous woman as commanded in the law of Moses.
He told his followers that the over 600 mosaic law has been summarised into 2 simple laws and that's all that matters.

Even the disciples of Jesus including Peter and James agreed gentiles should not be burdened with circumcision because it's no longer valid.
Read about the first council of jerusalem and the letter of James to the gentiles acts of apostles 15 for insight.

What do U mean by Paul was the one who told Christians to break the law? My friend, get your facts right and don't waffle pls.

What u should be asking is why did the Jewish Christians ignore Jesus instruction by trying to obey irrelevant mosiac laws which have been completed in Jesus?
The law of Moses is completed and made perfect in Jesus. We are to follow Jesus and not the law of Moses.

kkins25:
I am not incentivized to read the bible anymore. It serves no purpose in my life right now other than for arguments. But, I can easily get summaries from Youtube or scholarly dissertations from the likes of Dan Mclean on Tiktok, who's a award-winning bible scholar for the work he's done on tiktok.

It's evidenced by my interaction with u that u don't understand Christianity. U left Christianity because u dont understand it not because u think it's false.
This is common among so called intelligent or educated minds who started asking questions about the bible but not diligent enough to research properly or were swayed by the beer parlour anti Christian gossips and gist they watch on YouTube.
Seriously, it's the same theme amongst your likes 'I left christianity because I don't understand trinity or because of some videos I watched on YouTube'
How can u base a life changing decision on a tiktoker?


There's a reason no liberal bible scholar worth his credential will open his mouth and say Jesus is not real even when there's no extant evidence of his existence outside the bible. They dare not- it will end in humiliation.

Bart Erhman wrote a book called misquoting Jesus where he claimed the extant manuscripts of the gospel we have are full of errors.
Yet the following year, he admitted in an academic journal that none of the gospel extant manuscripts contradict
each other and all validates the core message of gospel. Infact he wrote 99% of the errors are scribal errors regarding spelling mistakes and are essentially inconsequential and there's no reason to doubt what's written in the four gospel books because it conform with extants manuscripts in existence.

You see Bart Erhman can get away writing gists in best seller books for his gullible fans and for money. But he dare not write nonsense in academic works otherwise his reputation will be ruined.

Take it from me, Christianity is real. It's the only reason I believe there's a God. No other religion validates the presence of God like Christianity. None.

I hope we discuss more here and I will open your eyes to the truth of christianity based on facts and historical research. The evidence is real.

That's why nobody that understands Christianity leaves Jesus Christ for some false religion or atheism..none. It makes no sense.

kkins25:
I'm not sure. I had to look this up. I suspect you mean logos in the sense used in John 1:1?

Logos is translated from Dabar, which meant "'word', 'talk' or 'thing'" in Hebrew.

There's no Jewish concept of Logos in the sense that we use it today. At least, non in the bible bar John 1;1. Probably hellenistic jews?

So, no, the Jews didn't know anything called Logos. Logos is entirely an element of Greek philosophy. See below:



The Greek translator, filled with Roman bias, used that bias to translate the Book of John into something it was not meant to be. If you mean logos in the sense that God's ideas come to life, then sure. That's what the writer of John intended.

I'm not here to discuss John 1.1 but what 2nd temple Judaism understand by the word logos in their language- Hebrew or Aramaic, not greek or Latin.

Since u already cast aspersion at Hellenised Jews, we will leave philo out of it.

Now let's talk about the Aramaic bible called Targum, the same Aramaic bible used by Jesus in the 1st century AD.
Now in the aramaic bible, whenever God appears in person like when God appeared to Abraham or Moses, the term memra (Aramaic for "word" ) is often used instead of 'the LORD', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed as anthropomorphic.
E.g instead of saying 'The LORD appeared to Abraham', it will read 'memra (the word) appeared to Abraham'.
THAT IS LOGOS.
This showed the Jews believed in the manifestation of the 'WORD' appearing as a person and being God.

This aramaic bible use of the word memra stem from the understanding of the Jews belief in what is the word of God. They understand it to be an active force proceeding from God with a life of it's own.

In the Targum, the Word or Memra is doing, being, and acting as God and yet we see that he is also with God, a distinct essence apart from Him.

And the Memra (Word) of the LORD said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light by His Memra (Word). A (Genesis 1:1–3; Targum Neofiti)

In fact, the Memra is the one who rested after all his work:

“On the seventh day, the Memra of the LORD completed his work which he had created, and there was Sabbath.” (Genesis 2:3; Targum Neofit

This is the Christian understanding of TRINITY-
manifestation of God in more than one person. This evidence and belief is shared by old testament scriptures and 2nd temple Judaism. All this before anyone was ever called Christian.

And this is the same JEWISH belief John wrote about in his gospel by letting us know memra became flesh and dwelt among us.
That is the origin of the concept my friend, a deeply rooted Jewish belief from the old testament.
It wasn't any extrapolation from the greek or Roman ideology.

kkins25:
The Jewish Christians do not also hold the notion that Jesus was anything remotely close to a deity—even those who did saw Jesus as lesser than Adonai. The Gentiles were the ones who equated Jesus Christ with God and formed the Holy Trinity. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the man who coined the word "Trinity." Take note of the parts I have bolded for you. Hopefully, you see how the influence of one can sway the minds of many. Also, he is of African origin but was raised under the Romanian empire. Therefore, he thinks like a roman. This is very important.

Tertullian is often considered an early proponent of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not state the later doctrine of the immanent Trinity. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words "trinity," "economy" (used in reference to the three persons), "persons," and "substance," maintaining the distinction of the Son from the Father as the unoriginate God, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv).



As you can see from the last statement, he first distinguished the persons of the Godhead. This was not derived from biblical scripture but the incorporation of Romanian philosophy into Christianity. The Roman scholars were very philosophical and were at their prime during this era. So, it's no surprise they were trying to make sense of chrisitian mysticsm.

Tertullian predated the Nicene creed, of course. In fact, his writings influenced the doctrines of the church fathers who argued against the heresy of Arius. Again, not that the Roman-influenced church fathers were also trying to make sense of Christian mysticism. All these doctrines weren't held by the likes of Peter, James, and early disciples of Christ—even Apst. Paul didn't equate Jesus with God. Note, the books of Hebrews weren't written by Apst. Paul. That's where the Gentile-like philosophy slipped into Judeo-Christianity.

I really don't know where to start correcting u. Did u just say Paul didn't say Jesus is God? Are u kidding?

So explain this verses from Paul.

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

Col 2.9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

However there's one particular Pauline passage I want us to discuss.

Philipians 2.5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Philippians 2:5-11 is considered by scholars a pre-Pauline hymn. This mean the passage wasn't Paul's original idea but borrowed the creed from an existing concept.
Philippians was written around A.D. 60. Since the hymn pre-dates the writing of Philippians, we could speculate that the hymn was composed in the 50s or perhaps even in the 40s.
This means the deity belief of Jesus was a concept known and accepted amongst early Christians and the beliefs upon which the hymn are based would date even in the 30s AD.
Considering the fact that Paul took for granted his audience’s belief in Jesus’ Deity among the philipians , it is proves that these early Christians believed Jesus to be divine from the beginning IE as early as 30s/40s AD, Christians were already saying Jesus is God

Regarding Tertullian and trinity. Are u saying no church father believed Jesus is God prior to Tertullian.
Is that what u saying. because I can bring writings from father Ignatius, Clement of Rome and Polycarp who all wrote Jesus is God. This were 1st century AD church fathers.

kkins25:
No, no, no! There's a stark difference between Europe's significant influence on today's Christianity and being the source of Christianity itself. You see, Christianity was no doubt formed by Jewish Christians. However, the doctrines and philosophy of Christianity differ greatly between the early Jews and would be later Gentiles.

Ok let's thrash this first.
Now let's check what early Jewish Christians believe about their faith. We will look at both internal and external evidence.
There's a book called Didache which is an Eucharist/catechism used by early Jewish Christians during worship.
Scholars agree this book was written btw 50-70 AD. It was even considered as a canon but didn't eventually make it.
Now how does this book tell us to baptise? In whose name should we baptise?
What did the book say about the son of God.

Now what did Peter, John and James write in their letters. Did it confirm Paul's writings, did Peter agree with Paul.

Evidence Peter believed Jesus is God

2 peter1.1

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Did Peter agree with Paul

2 Peter 3

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Did John agree with the gentiles regarding divinity of Christ.

1 John 4
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,


https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

studyless123:
This is what you should have posted earlier about the defendants policy.
You sounded like the UK can do whatever she likes because she's a rich parent.
While I agree that UK needs to manage her migration crises, they always thread with caution because one-fifth of university funding comes from oversees. That's one of the reasons why the universities didn't support the policy.
Do you know that public funding of universities have be declining while costs are increasing? I've read several articles on UK higher education last year and many are struggling financially.

UK govt should be firm on this policy. Any university that depends on foreign students to survive should target Chinese students- those ones go back home, or close shop, better still they can merge.
Close to 3 million people entered the UK in the last 2 yrs and they not going back.
The UK is no longer a wealthy country, the pressure on schools, NHS, housing and public infrastructure is overwhelming.
A country do not depend on revenue from education and tourism to survive. Those are just adjuvants and should not the main source of revenue

Qasim6:
There is nothing you can come up with except ambiguous verses like the ones you quoted up there when there are clear cut verses like mark 10:28, John 17:28, John 5:30 and the likes that clearly point to the fact that he is not God Almighty.

If he is truly God then he did a bad job telling us he is.

My friend you just need to throw away that trinitarian lenses you are using to read those verses.

Still thinking of how to respond.
Here's another verse we need to dissect to understand who is Jesus Christ.

John 20
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, [f]“Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

Ask yourself why would someone call Jesus God right in his face and he didn't reject the claim. Instead reprimanded him for not believing.

Why did Jesus accept to be called God in the presence of his disciples if we are to assume Jesus is a honest and righteous person.

Thomas called him God and he did not correct him.
Why?
What do U think? Is this another ambiguous verse?

Ohyoudidn't u are free to join the ring. I'm happy to enlighten you all. This is not to make u Christians but to understand the person of Jesus.

TenQ:
Happy New year to you my brother in Christ.

The Qur'an is supposed to be
1. In clear Arabic : but it isn't
2. The Qur'an is supposed to be free of errors: but it isn't
3. The Qur'an is supposed to be free of contradictions: but it isn't


Yet, they wouldn't consider that it is the words of an Arabian man Mohammed

Happy new year my brother in Christ.
This year is a call to defeat Taqiya and misinformation being spread by Muslims. We must intensify our effort to defeat false hood and teach the truth.
The message should also go to some of our Christian brothers and sisters who are naive and oblivious of the machination of the evil one.

This is a year of truth.

Qasim6:
There is nothing you can come up with except ambiguous verses like the ones you quoted up there when there are clear cut verses like mark 10:28, John 17:28, John 5:30 and the likes that clearly point to the fact that he is not God Almighty.

If he is truly God then he did a bad job telling us he is.

My friend you just need to throw away that trinitarian lenses you are using to read those verses.

The unitarian Christian bible also has John 14.7-9 which clearly states whosoever has seen me has seen the father.
Now unlike you, I absolutely agree with those verses u quoted including John 17.3. it's u guys that conveniently avoid the verse u deem embarrassing.

Now the question is why would Jesus say 'That they may know you the only true God' or 'why call me good, only God is good'
BUT yet calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath and says anyone who sees him has seen the father.

These are powerful words, u can't just shove it under the carpet because u don't agree with it.

That's why I'm here to help u to know who is Jesus Christ.
Now let me ask u again, why would Jesus say anyone who has seen me has seen the father.

Leave trinity out of this, I'm not even talking trinity neither do I plan to go there. This is about Jesus Christ as written in the gospel. Jesus did not mention the word Trinity so it's inconsequential to topic of discussion.
I'm here to discuss what JESUS SAID ABOUT HIMSELF NOT WHAT PEOPLE SAID ABOUT HIM

What did he say about himself? I'm here to help u know Jesus Christ.

Finally, I would help u remove the apologetic lie that Jesus was a Muslim. Jesus is not a Muslim and can never be a Muslim.

Qasim6:
Why will I be annoyed at a trinitarian that see multiple Gods every where they look, only a trinitarian will look at that verse and see multiple Gods.

U wey look at these verses from ur scripture and still conclude Jesus is God

I and Father are one..John 10:30

I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. John 17:21

Now this is eternal life: that they know YOU, the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ, whom YOU have SENT. John 17:3

Father is GREATER than I. John 14:28.

You see these verses and you still believe Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. I can only pity you, I'm not annoyed.

Who invited trinitarians to Quran 2:62? You lot have failed in the most basic things a believer in God should have which is
Hear o Israel the lord our God is one.
You have shared the glory of God with other beings because of a man made doctrine of trinity.

Who is Jesus? What did he say about himself.
I'm happy to teach you about Jesus if u willing to learn.
I will also prove to you using the Koran that Jesus is not a Muslim and can never be a Muslim.
Ohyoudidn't u are also free to join this debate.

I sincerely hope u guys will not change the goalpost midway and start shouting the bible is corrupt...which is the national anthem of Muslim apologetics when debate isn't going their way.

Now let's start with this verses

John 14
If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Why did Jesus say whoever has seen him has seen the father. What exactly does he mean by that statement.

kkins25:
Christians and comedy

Unfortunately, the breed of Christians here is very different from those about 9 years ago. Unfortunately, I was but a little kid then... It would have been great going back and forth with Muttleylaff, and the likes now...Even though them too get their own koskos... but, at least those ones where very knowledgable of the bible. Good old days. Used to enjoy reading them.. Especially how they were flowing Sarassin up and down..hahah

You are yet to answer one single question thrown at u. Just one
U came here with your bogus greeco-roman/European source for Christianity but u can't defend it.
All u do is waffling and throwing empty words all over the place. Words u can't defend.
I wonder who is the comedian.

I repeat my question in case u pretend not to see it
Tell me what the second temple Jews regard as Logos.
Waiting for your answer.

How do Gentiles see Jesus as the Messiah? Do they believe he's the anointed one who will establish the kingdom of God here on earth by defeating Israel enemies.
If they believe he's the Messiah prophesied in the old testament, then why are they not following the mosaic laws.
Why is there contention btw the Jewish Christians and gentiles regarding FF the law of Moses.
How did Paul present messianic claim of Jesus to the gentiles? What was he anointed for and what is the Kingdom of God he established.

I will advise u pick a bible and read the book of acts and Romans then come back to debate me.