Linguistic scholars supposedly deny the deity of Christ!!!!!

[teflonfanatic]

I've checked half a dozen or so dictionaries(they're made by linguistic scholars) not one says Jesus is God but it says Jehovah is God.

American heritage

Jesus
Jewish religious leader who was crucified in Jerusalem after his teaching and reported miracle-working incurred the disfavor of the Roman government of Palestine. In Christianity, Jesus is seen as Christ and as the Son of God.

Jehovah
God, especially in Christian translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Oxford

Jesus
the central figure of the Christian religion. Jesus conducted a mission of preaching and healing (with reported miracles) in Palestine in about ad 28-30, which is described in the Gospels. His followers considered him to be the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God, and belief in his resurrection from the dead is the central tenet of Christianity.

Jehovah
a form of the Hebrew name of God used in some translations of the Bible.

Merriam-Webster

Jesus
: the Jewish religious teacher whose life, death, and resurrection as reported by the Evangelists are the basis of the Christian message of salvation —called also Jesus Christ

Jehovah
: god 1a

We all know Jesus is divine and a mighty spirit who was used to create the universe but if Jesus(John 20:17, Revelation 3:14), angels(Revelation 11:15) and linguistic scholars admit there's someone Jesus is subject to how is he equal to the most high outside of nature?

[mh874892]

So, are you asking how Jesus is God? How they are one in the same within the Christian belief system?

[sarabtrayior]

Do you have way too much time on your hands??? Who cares what Linguistic scholars say, In this free world of the good ole, USA I can choose to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and if you want to believe this, it's your right too...

[JediJohnnie]

If you're looking for a dictionary to confirm your faith in the Lord and Savior,you've made your first mistake right there.

[falcon9]

If you're looking for a dictionary to confirm your faith in the Lord and Savior,you've made your first mistake right there.

If you're looking for dubious source such as some variation of a 'bible' to confirm any baseless "faith", all you'll get are more unfounded and 'faith-based' assertions in one big circular merry-go-round of nonsense.

[teflonfanatic]

If you're looking for a dictionary to confirm your faith in the Lord and Savior,you've made your first mistake right there.

You do know the dictionary is made by language scholars right that's what a linguistic scholar is.

You also know that the most educated religious scholars and scholars in general turn to linguistic scholars for understanding words in various languages, your reasoning is circular and slighty biased.

thirdly did you see the three scriptures I posted? John 20:17, Revelation 3:14,  Revelation 11:15 2 of them are from Jesus himself and one is from angels, those are the highest forms of life second only to the most high himself, I will take they're word first then linguistic scholars.

[Cuppycake]

It is all  anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.

[teflonfanatic]

It is all  anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.

Sometimes reality sucks 

[falcon9]

It is all   anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.

Sometimes reality sucks  

Ultimately, so do self-delusions.

[teflonfanatic]

It is all   anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.

Sometimes reality sucks  

Ultimately, so do self-delusions.

I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.

[falcon9]

I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.

As long as what happens in your head, stays there, (like Vegas, in way), then to each their own.

[demaina]

I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.

As long as what happens in your head, stays there, (like Vegas, in way), then to each their own.

You do realize you're asking a lot for people to bottle up everything that comes through their head.  We wouldn't have any scientific discoveries if people didn't talk about what they had thought up.  We wouldn't be able to talk either since, generally, people think about what they say before saying it. 

I see it as believe (or don't believe) what you want, go ahead and be proud of your beliefs, just don't force it on me.  That includes physical attacks (harming me, not assisting if I'm injured, etc), verbal attacks (calling me names, trying to convert me, etc), and (if you believe in them) mental/spiritual attacks (wishing harm on me, wishing illness, etc) simply because I do not follow your thought processes.  Other than that, if we can live peacefully together, I really don't care what other wish to believe.


As far as the OP's question, again this is an issue of faith.  It's like asking who's opinion is correct.  If you don't want to believe, you don't have to.  Or if you do want to believe, go for it.  Either way you will find people who are hard set in their belief systems that will try and sway you.

[falcon9]

You do realize you're asking a lot for people to bottle up everything that comes through their head.  We wouldn't have any scientific discoveries if people didn't talk about what they had thought up.  We wouldn't be able to talk either since, generally, people think about what they say before saying it. 

That's fine, I wasn't referring to bottling-up their thoughts, just their faith-based beliefs, (unless they want to attempt to support those with some reasoning process which can be discussed - if there is no such process, that's probably something they'd want to keep to themselves).

I see it as believe (or don't believe) what you want, go ahead and be proud of your beliefs, just don't force it on me.  That includes physical attacks (harming me, not assisting if I'm injured, etc), verbal attacks (calling me names, trying to convert me, etc), and (if you believe in them) mental/spiritual attacks (wishing harm on me, wishing illness, etc) simply because I do not follow your thought processes. 

I agree with you, especially regarding the forcing of someone else's beliefs on others, (this includes the subtle or, not-so-subtle attempts at conversion by way of dragging those unfounded beliefs into unrelated topics of discussion ... that includes unsolicited 'praying' for others without their consent as well).   

Other than that, if we can live peacefully together, I really don't care what other wish to believe.
As far as the OP's question, again this is an issue of faith.  It's like asking who's opinion is correct. 

Not quite; since not all "opinions" are 'created equally'.  Some result from a thought process which includes facts, evidence and reasoning while others do not, ("faith" being one which does not as it has no rational basis).

If you don't want to believe, you don't have to.  Or if you do want to believe, go for it.  Either way you will find people who are hard set in their belief systems that will try and sway you.

Good point, also you may find some particularly 'fundamentalist' believers who will attempt to sway, (not by reason), but by way of irrational 'attacks' on challengers, (_not_ the challenging questions/arguments themselves), and by making empty declarations, (that is, those which they either cannot or will not back up).  A few others have more open minds and are willing to examine alternate perspectives regarding controversial subjects.

[teflonfanatic]

I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.

As long as what happens in your head, stays there, (like Vegas, in way), then to each their own.

But I don't go to Vegas so I guess that will never happen. Anyway I quoted linguistic scholars but I guess they're closed-minded, stupid and don't know what they're talking about to, let's not forget self delusional, according to your belief system your not allowed to believe an influential people or human rulers according to the merriam-webster and Oxford dictionaries of God. 

[falcon9]

Anyway I quoted linguistic scholars

Partially, and adding your own interpretations to theirs, (definitions are intended to define terms so that people don't off-handledly alter them to suit).
 

but I guess they're closed-minded, stupid and don't know what they're talking about to, let's not forget self delusional, according to your belief system

No such assessment was made regarding "linguistic scholars" since their definitions do not "deny the deity of christ", (defining the terms "jesus" and "jehovah" neither confirm nor deny religious beliefs).  As for your assumption, I don't have a "belief system"; something either exists or, does not and a belief or disbelief has no bearing on existance/non-existance.

your not allowed to believe an influential people or human rulers according to the merriam-webster and Oxford dictionaries of God. 

I generally tend to avoid the appeal to authority logical fallacy however, defining terms is a minimum requirement of language.  Unless there is a common consensus of terms, you get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions.