Was Jesus God on earth?

[IncRus]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

On the other hand, if you say that Jesus was NOT God on earth, was he ever God BEFORE he came to earth or is he God NOW that he is sitting at the right hand of God? Please show scripure to support your answer, if any.

We all agree that Jesus was TRUE man on earth, don't we?

[RoadRunner]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

Yes He did.

Mat 12:8 "For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath."

No Jew would call Himself "lord of the sabbath" if He didn't believe Himself to be God.

[Piebald]

Yes:

1Co 8:6 We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him. Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Everything was made by him, and by him life was given to us.

Yahweh is our One Lord and God.

One Lord = Jesus = Yahweh = Everything made by him and through him
One God = The Father = Yahweh = He created everything.

[Sparko]

what? Pythagoras isn't here yet?

:popcorn:

[IncRus]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

Yes He did.

Mat 12:8 "For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath."

No Jew would call Himself "lord of the sabbath" if He didn't believe Himself to be God.

RoadRunner,

You ASSUME that "Jesus believed himself to be God" when he said, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath" because he is a Jew, and you THINK that "no Jew would call himself "lord of the Sabbath" if he didn't be;ieve himself to be God, right?

Would you know whether your ASSUMPTION is correct or not?

[IncRus]

Yes:

1Co 8:6 We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him. Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Everything was made by him, and by him life was given to us.

Yahweh is our One Lord and God.

One Lord = Jesus = Yahweh = Everything made by him and through him
One God = The Father = Yahweh = He created everything.

Hamster,

Are you saying that Jesus is the Father AND also the Son at the SAME time? Please clarify your position.

[IncRus]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

On the other hand, if you say that Jesus was NOT God on earth, was he ever God BEFORE he came to earth or is he God NOW that he is sitting at the right hand of God? Please show scripure to support your answer, if any.

We all agree that Jesus was TRUE man on earth, don't we?
Jesus did NOT believe he was "God on earth." The TRUTH is, Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[seer]

Jesus did NOT believe he was "God on earth." The TRUTH is, Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Of course He was a man. One with a divine nature....

Uncreated: John 1:3...

[seeking_clarity]

Of course He was a man. One with a divine nature....

Uncreated: John 1:3...

John 1:3 would convey what the author of John thought Jesus was. Is there something that Jesus said that would support this?

[Creon]

Isn't the idea of an Avatar of God primarily a Hindu tradition? The Hindu's believe that Krishna was the avatar of Brahma, one of the three gods in the Trinity of Hinduism. Is Jesus simply the Avatar in Christianities trinity? That seems like its approaching polythesism from the backdoor.

[Lady Gooner]

Because Jesus didn’t have a human father He was born sinless. Jesus’ Father was God.

God is Holy and Perfect, without sin
Jesus didn’t inherit adam’s sinfulness
Jesus was the perfect son of God, holy and sinless
He was God’s anointed one, set apart for three special duties : Prophet priest and king

As God’s prophet he told the people the way to be delivered from satan, sin and everlasting punishment

As High Priest He took the sins of the people on himself so there would be atonement

As King He rules

Jesus' Father God protected and guided Him in everything that He thought said and did

Jesus obeyed every command of God ~ he never sinned because He was not born a sinner

He was not seperated from God

He perfectly obeyed every command of God

only God is completely righteous and holy and JC is God


Even though Jesus was God He was also a real man, he grew up as a manif He wasnt fully man then He wouldn't have been able to be the deliverer for mankind.

His character as a man was the character of God



sinless
Holy
always kept His word
faithful in everything He did
completely righteous
posessing a perfect knowledge
merciful
gracious
completely loving
kind


Philippians 2 Be Like Christ

1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Son of Man

Applied to Christ it designates Him as sharing human qualities and shows He is subject to human infirmities. Yet it also implies His deity,

Matt 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

“I the son of God, am man, in weakness, in suffering, even unto death. Yet I am still in touch with heaven whence I came and hold such a relationship to the divine that I can forgive sins”

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

“This manhood shall not cease when I have passed through those last stages of suffering and death, which I must endure for man’s salvation. For I shall arise and take it with me to heaven, whence I shall return to rule over those whose nature I have assumed”

[markporter]

Go read some Tom Wright...your question really doesn't get it right as far I can see - this isn't the sort of thing that comes out of a prooftext, it comes out of looking at the total picture of Jesus' life, ministry, stories, actions, claims, vocation.

Sure, saying Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath doesn't in itself say 'Jesus is God' it could be just some weird thing that he said, but look at it in the bigger picture and in makes the best sense in the picture of Jesus as God with us.

I highly recommend the sermon on this kind of thing on the NT Wright page - I had to listen to it about 10 times and read a lot of his other stuff before I really began to get the picture together, but I think it is a picture worth capturing.

[Provoker]

Go read some Tom Wright...your question really doesn't get it right as far I can see - this isn't the sort of thing that comes out of a prooftext, it comes out of looking at the total picture of Jesus' life, ministry, stories, actions, claims, vocation.

Sure, saying Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath doesn't in itself say 'Jesus is God' it could be just some weird thing that he said, but look at it in the bigger picture and in makes the best sense in the picture of Jesus as God with us.

I highly recommend the sermon on this kind of thing on the NT Wright page - I had to listen to it about 10 times and read a lot of his other stuff before I really began to get the picture together, but I think it is a picture worth capturing.
Hello Mark:
I agree! The answer is not found by the traditional method of finding specific bible verses which happen to have the right words to support a preconceived doctrine, the answer is found in the big picture(the greater context of the bible).
When we consider that the messiah was prophesied to receive the kingdom of his father David, not the kingdom of his father God, we must recognize that the prophecy is refering to the literal, resurrected, Davidic kingdom, the obvious conclusion then has to be that ***The messiah cannot be God***.
Any time Israel backslid and then repented, God always took it back into His favour, but when Israel backslid and split into two enemy kingdoms, they remained enemies(unrepented) to their respective destructions.
According to His own terms in the everlasting(old) covenant, God has been obliged to keep His face turned away from Israel from that time, and cannot aid Israel till it becomes a covenant nation again.
("The divided kingdom" is a misnomer, invented to cover up the fact that national Israel ceased to exist when it split in two. The kingdom was only divided during the last part of Solomon's reign, and when Solomon died, Israel split into two other kingdoms)
The only way that God's everlasting plan to bless all the nations of the world, can continue from where it left off at Solomon's death, is for the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel to be resurrected, from the dead, to repentance.
The only clear messianic prophesy, has the messiah coming to receive the kingdom of his father David, but that does not imply that the messiah is God, or even sent by God, and it couldn't imply that anyway, because God cannot be involved in the resurrection of covenant Israel. that would make God's promises, in His everlasting(old) covenant, lies...and God cannot lie.
Once covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, by the christ and his body of followers, ***without God's aid***, Israel will have been repented, and taken back into God's favour, and God's everlasting plan to bless all the nations of the world will continue.
"Spiritual Israel" has existed in hearts and minds since the fall of literal, national Israel, at the end of Solomon's reign, and the goal of those who have the spirit of the kingdom in their hearts and minds(the spiritual kingdom), is to recruit a large body of people, who have faith that the kingdom is coming(the gospel of the kingdom), and are watching and waiting for the messiah.
When the body of(which watches for the) christ, reaches the numbers which will insure it's successful re-posession of the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, the christ will lead it to victory, and when the final trumpet sounds, indicating that the promised land has been re-taken, then in the twinkling of an eye, all of spiritual Israel will be changed into literal Israel, resurrected from the dead.(like the closing of a realestate transfer, in the twinkling of an eye, a prospective owner becomes a literal owner)
When the messiah makes his triumphal entry into his bride(Jerusalem, made new by being possessed by a people which loves God, and loves one another), and ascends the throne, the kingdom of his father David will have been resurrected...and received.
This obvious, continuing story, which runs through the bible, is not told by quoting single verses, or passages, the use of which simply covers up the true story of the bible, and has spawned 30,000+ doctrinally conflicting denominations and sects.
The bible was not written in verses, but it was certainly written in context...LOL

[John from Ebla]

what? Pythagoras isn't here yet?

:popcorn:

His busy with me on the other thread. :sigh:

Anyway, in the words of Jesus " If you see me you see the Father" if the father is not God then neither is Jesus- and if he said, “l am God” he would not have been one with the Father, but another god as many are making him out to be.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[IncRus]

Jesus did NOT believe he was "God on earth." The TRUTH is, Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Of course He was a man. One with a divine nature....

Uncreated: John 1:3...

Seer,

Jesus could NOT have been "uncreated." You agree that Jesus is a MAN, right? If it is true that Jesus is a MAN, then he is a CREATED being because "God CREATED man in His own image" (Gen. 1:27).

What John meant in John 1:3 is that "all things were made 'BECAUSE OF' (through) him, and WITHOUT him, NOTHING was made that was made." And this makes sense because "...we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared BEFOREHAND that we should walk in" (Eph. 2:10).

[IncRus]

Because Jesus didn’t have a human father He was born sinless. Jesus’ Father was God.

God is Holy and Perfect, without sin
Jesus didn’t inherit adam’s sinfulness
Jesus was the perfect son of God, holy and sinless
He was God’s anointed one, set apart for three special duties : Prophet priest and king

As God’s prophet he told the people the way to be delivered from satan, sin and everlasting punishment

As High Priest He took the sins of the people on himself so there would be atonement

As King He rules

Jesus' Father God protected and guided Him in everything that He thought said and did

Jesus obeyed every command of God ~ he never sinned because He was not born a sinner

He was not seperated from God

He perfectly obeyed every command of God

only God is completely righteous and holy and JC is God


Even though Jesus was God He was also a real man, he grew up as a manif He wasnt fully man then He wouldn't have been able to be the deliverer for mankind.

His character as a man was the character of God



sinless
Holy
always kept His word
faithful in everything He did
completely righteous
posessing a perfect knowledge
merciful
gracious
completely loving
kind


Philippians 2 Be Like Christ

1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Son of Man

Applied to Christ it designates Him as sharing human qualities and shows He is subject to human infirmities. Yet it also implies His deity,

Matt 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

“I the son of God, am man, in weakness, in suffering, even unto death. Yet I am still in touch with heaven whence I came and hold such a relationship to the divine that I can forgive sins”

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

“This manhood shall not cease when I have passed through those last stages of suffering and death, which I must endure for man’s salvation. For I shall arise and take it with me to heaven, whence I shall return to rule over those whose nature I have assumed”

lady g,

You forgot that Jesus said to the Father, "And eternal life is knowing YOU, the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ whom you SENT" (John 17:3 TEV).

While i is true that Jesus HAD all the qualities and attributes you mentioned, the TRUTH that the Father is the ONLY true God remains!

[IncRus]

His busy with me on the other thread. :sigh:

Anyway, in the words of Jesus " If you see me you see the Father" if the father is not God then neither is Jesus- and if he said, “l am God” he would not have been one with the Father, but another god as many are making him out to be.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

John From Ebla,

Are you saying that Jesus and the Father are ONE and the SAME God?

I believe what Jesus said is the same as Kennedy's son saying, "If you have seen me, you have seen my father, the ONLY President of the United States" - meaning that Kennedy's son has all the characteristics and attributes of his father but Kennedy's son is NOT the President.

Kennedy's son could even say that "he and his father, the President are ONE" but that does NOT make ?Kennedy's son the President.

Jesus had all the powers, righteousness and holiness of the Father but Jeus is a MAN (John 8:40) - NOT God because the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[IncRus]

Go read some Tom Wright...your question really doesn't get it right as far I can see - this isn't the sort of thing that comes out of a prooftext, it comes out of looking at the total picture of Jesus' life, ministry, stories, actions, claims, vocation.

Sure, saying Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath doesn't in itself say 'Jesus is God' it could be just some weird thing that he said, but look at it in the bigger picture and in makes the best sense in the picture of Jesus as God with us.

I highly recommend the sermon on this kind of thing on the NT Wright page - I had to listen to it about 10 times and read a lot of his other stuff before I really began to get the picture together, but I think it is a picture worth capturing.

markporter,

Anything that contradicts what Jesus says is NOT worth reading. Jesus CANNOT be "God on earth" because he said that "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and a "Spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39).

His being "Lord of the Sabbath" does NOT make Jesus God.

[Provoker]

markporter,

Anything that contradicts what Jesus says is NOT worth reading. Jesus CANNOT be "God on earth" because he said that "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and a "Spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39).

His being "Lord of the Sabbath" does NOT make Jesus God.
Hello IncRus:
I agree that according to the greater context of the bible, Jesus was "Just" a man, and not God. The reason he was called "the son of God", is because he was believed to be the one who would resurrect the Davidic kingdom. The messiah will be Solomon's immediate successor on the Davidic throne, and since Solomon was literally the son of David, and the son of God, the messiah will receive those titles, by imputation, after he ascends David's resurrected throne.

[Pythagoras]

Trinitarians interprete the prelude to the gospel of John (and especially John 1:1) to mean Jesus is God(Yahweh). However the writer of the gospel of John intended no such thing. Origen(who was tortured and killed for his faith) was the most prolific of all early Church fathers. He was not a Trinitarian. Expounding on the nuances of the Greek language in John 1:1, Origen explained in his "Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2" the intent of the gospel writer :



“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.”



best wishes,

[John from Ebla]

John From Ebla,

Are you saying that Jesus and the Father are ONE and the SAME God?

I believe what Jesus said is the same as Kennedy's son saying, "If you have seen me, you have seen my father, the ONLY President of the United States" - meaning that Kennedy's son has all the characteristics and attributes of his father but Kennedy's son is NOT the President.

Kennedy's son could even say that "he and his father, the President are ONE" but that does NOT make ?Kennedy's son the President.

Jesus had all the powers, righteousness and holiness of the Father but Jeus is a MAN (John 8:40) - NOT God because the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).


Exactly the way l would put it. The Kennedy's issue is: they were both of the same nature but one was Father the other was Son- did the Kennedy son have bones of an animal and the Father of a human? No! Did the Kennedy son have a spirit of God and the Father a Spirit of man? No.

The case with Jesus is not the same as with the kennedy's. Can you see a spirit? No, the only way you can see the pressnce of God is if it takes on visible body, and it did, in the body of Jesus- the spirit in that body is the spirit of God- God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) Did They see the spirit? No! They only saw the visable form it took.

If people say Jesus is another form of god- then they are doing exactly what the Shema is telling them not to do, "You shall have no other gods" Your Lord God is One- and that is what Jesus said, l and the Father are one.

Ex "And the Messenger of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob..........." (Exodus 3:2-14).

So, if President Bush were to dispatch an envoy to China who, upon arrival, were to present himself before the Chinese authorities and boldly announce, 'I'm George Bush', what would he be but a liar and a fraud? Impersonating the one who sent you as ambassador is not part of the job description. Yet it's this very scam which the new religious movements impute to the theophanic 'messenger of the LORD' that became Flesh. The messenger is the word of God and the word became flesh. Can you claim this messenger never called him God?

Kind regards
John From Ebla


.

[sonofyah]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

On the other hand, if you say that Jesus was NOT God on earth, was he ever God BEFORE he came to earth or is he God NOW that he is sitting at the right hand of God? Please show scripure to support your answer, if any.

We all agree that Jesus was TRUE man on earth, don't we?





First, I would like to say "God" is a terrible substitution for "Elohim". Now to everyone who thinks the Trinity is truth is a liar. It doesnt appear in the scriptures. The truth is Elohim is plural and it means "Mighty Ones". That is the common name given to YHWH, The Word and The Ruach Hakodesh. These three are ONE, meaning one like a marriage. All Throughout scripture You see Yahshua speaking to his Father in Heaven so that totally rebukes the question "is jesus god". The answer is NO. Yahshua is Emmanuel which means "Elohim is with us".

Scriptures:

Mat 1:23
Mat 27:46
Rev 5

Next, I want to say Yes Yahshua died, but you have to realize he was the ultimate sacrifice for a people that YHWH loved so much. It was divine order, he was sent here to die for us.

Bereshith 1:1- In the begining Elohim created the heavens and the Earth.

This is the truth. You know the Father, the word and the Ruach Hakodesh was there in the begining, but this cannot be true if place "GOD" in the place of Elohim. "God" denotes "one", its singular. Also we know the angels knew him as "El". Why, All of the angels were called "Sons of Elohim". I mean if you look at it, all of there names end in "el". See

Michael
Gabriel
Raziel.....

Also see Shemoth (Exodus) 6:3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitshaq and to Yaaqob as El Shaddai. And by my Name YHWH was I not known to them?

So to answer your question. No the Heavenly Father YHWH didnot die, but His Only begotten Son did. YHWH raised him from the dead on the third day.

Thats what I wrote in the other thread "is jesus god". Yes the Word is truth but the english language will hack up any doctrine or truth that is transliterated into it.

[John from Ebla]

First, I would like to say "God" is a terrible substitution for "Elohim". Now to everyone who thinks the Trinity is truth is a liar. It doesnt appear in the scriptures. The truth is Elohim is plural and it means "Mighty Ones". That is the common name given to YHWH, The Word and The Ruach Hakodesh. These three are ONE, meaning one like a marriage. All Throughout scripture You see Yahshua speaking to his Father in Heaven so that totally rebukes the question "is jesus god". The answer is NO. Yahshua is Emmanuel which means "Elohim is with us".

Scriptures:

Mat 1:23
Mat 27:46
Rev 5

Next, I want to say Yes Yahshua died, but you have to realize he was the ultimate sacrifice for a people that YHWH loved so much. It was divine order, he was sent here to die for us.

Bereshith 1:1- In the begining Elohim created the heavens and the Earth.

This is the truth. You know the Father, the word and the Ruach Hakodesh was there in the begining, but this cannot be true if place "GOD" in the place of Elohim. "God" denotes "one", its singular. Also we know the angels knew him as "El". Why, All of the angels were called "Sons of Elohim". I mean if you look at it, all of there names end in "el". See

Michael
Gabriel
Raziel.....

Also see Shemoth (Exodus) 6:3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitshaq and to Yaaqob as El Shaddai. And by my Name YHWH was I not known to them?

Hmm, l wonder.

Exodus 6:3 - I revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai), and did not allow them to know Me by My name (Y-H-V-H) Adonai

The phrase reads "as God Almighty" and not "with my name God Almighty".

While God revealed himself to Abraham and Jacob as God Almighty (E-l Shaddai) (Gen 17:1, 35:11), He did, in fact, use the Adonia (Y-H-V-H) in speaking to Abraham
(Gen 15:7) and Jacob (Gen 28:13). The name was used by The messenger of God, his word that became flesh (Gen 16:11, 19:13,14, 18:14), The Patriarchs new the name and used it (Gen 14:22, 15:2, 15:8, 16:2, 16:5, 22:14, 24:27, 24:31, 24:40, 24:44, 24:48, 26:22, 27:7, 27:27, 28:31, 29:32, 33:35, 30:24, 30:30, 32:10, 49:18)

The gentiles new it too. (Gen 4:1, 9:26, 24:3,24:31, 26:28,29, 30:27, 31:49).

(Y-H-V-H) Adonai- How did the LXX treat it? Lord.

One Lord (Y-H-V-H) and One God 1 Cor 8:6
"And the Messenger of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob..........." (Exodus 3:2-14).
Now Rember Paul said Jesus existed in the Form of God equal to God. (Phil 2:6) Yep-the one above is him because that messenger existed in the Form of God and he called himself "(Y-H-V-H) Adonai"

That is why Jesus said "Before abraham was l am" He is"(Y-H-V-H) Adonai

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Provoker]

Hello John:
You can put any vowel, anywhere, in Y-H-V-H, and you can't make it spell Adonai, you come up with something like "Yehovah".
Apples and oranges only go together in a fruit salad...LOL

[Pythagoras]

Hi John of Ebla,

Why do you get angry when Catholics(your trinitarian brothers) say God is a wafer but you yourself have no problem with making God out to be a man? God- Man or Wafer, both are abominations.


best wishes,

[John from Ebla]

Hello John:
You can put any vowel, anywhere, in Y-H-V-H, and you can't make it spell Adonai, you come up with something like "Yehovah".
Apples and oranges only go together in a fruit salad...LOL


l Never said it did. Try the Hebrew letters "yod-heh-vav-heh", which is read as "Adonai". Jesus never said " Yah" or any other variation and Paul did the same- both taught us to say Father and both used Lord. Kurios, Adonia

It easy to type 4 letters- but the sciptures is about words that were said and spoken- not "YHVH" name guessing games that Yah cults like to play. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[John from Ebla]

Hi John of Ebla,

Why do you get angry when Catholics(your trinitarian brothers) say God is a wafer but you yourself have no problem with making God out to be a man? God- Man or Wafer, both are abominations.


best wishes,


l am not. I just say "that is not what the sciptures say"

But the scriptures do say "God was in Christ" (2 Cor 5:19) So tell me, Why do you not undertand that the scriptures say "God was in Christ" but not in your wafer or your chicken. :ahem:

PS Don't forget the Rabbi and the Chicken.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Pythagoras]

Hi John from Ebla,

But the scriptures do say "God was in Christ" (2 Cor 5:19) So tell me, . :ahem:

The scripture says the Holy Spirit(God) was in the apostles (Acts 2:4). Why don't you say the Apostles are God? Aren't you being inconsistent in the application of scripture?


Why do you not undertand that the scriptures say "God was in Christ" but not in your wafer or your chicken


Did you know the Catholic Church uses scripture to prove the doctrine of "transubstantiation", just like you use scripture to prove the "Deity" of Christ?
Why should we believe someone like you and not the 1600 year old Mother Catholic Church?

best wishes,

[John from Ebla]

Hi John from Ebla,



The scripture says the Holy Spirit(God) was in the apostles (Acts 2:4). Why don't you say the Apostles are God? Aren't you being inconsistent in the application of scripture?



Did you know the Catholic Church uses scripture to prove the doctrine of "transubstantiation", just like you use scripture to prove the "Deity" of Christ?
Why should we believe someone like you and not the 1600 year old Mother Catholic Church?

best wishes,


The scriptures say the "Holy Spirit" the scriptures say ' "Christ" the scriptures say "God"- and in the gospel of John Jesus say's, "l and the Father". There is a difference between and influential power in us, and the very essence of God in Jesus. :blush:

The scripture’s is what we have, had and will have. The one’s that don't like the scriptures are JW and the Rabbi's- that’s why the latter have the Jewish law of agency. Why should l believe the Rabbi that said "we have no king but Cesar" cut off the messiah and then left with what Rome has given them for the last 2000 years. :ahem:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Provoker]

Hello John:
You have made an important point, in that the scripture says just about anything one would want it to say. Everyone says; "Scripture says", but 99.999% of them are wrong in my estimation, because scripture is not a single verses, or a single passage, which has the specific wording we like...scripture is total meaning of all the verses read consecutively.
When we point to one passage and say; "Scripture says...", we destroy the synergy of scripture.
The bible was not written in verses, but it was written in context, and context is the only thing which can interpret verses.
I don't mean simply a local context established by reading the verses before and the verses after, but the greater context which is the whole continuing story which runs right through the bible.
At best, any bible that exists today, is a paraphrasing of a doctrinally interpreted translation, and only the greater context of the whole bible, can take the doctrinal edges off of the text.

[Lady Gooner]

lady g,

You forgot that Jesus said to the Father, "And eternal life is knowing YOU, the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ whom you SENT" (John 17:3 TEV).

While it is true that Jesus HAD all the qualities and attributes you mentioned, the TRUTH that the Father is the ONLY true God remains!

ah but was that intentional or not :huh: you will never know :lol:


Oh well ONWARDS and Upwards .... Didn't Jesus himself ask the very same question this thread is asking

Mark 8
Peter's Confession of Christ
27Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?" 28They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."
29And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."
30And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

Matthew 16 Peter's Confession of Christ
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Luke 9 18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, "Who do the people say that I am?" 19They answered and said, "John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again."
20And He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."
21But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone,

Jesus had already presented to the people who He was


Son of God
The promised Deliverer
Shown them by His power by the miracles He had done
The fact He is called Lord "Kurios"



Mark 9
The Transfiguration
1And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
2Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;
3and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.

What does the transfiguration tell us about Him?


John 8:58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 10 30"I and the Father are one."
31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

why did they want to stone Him?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John:
You have made an important point, in that the scripture says just about anything one would want it to say. Everyone says; "Scripture says", but 99.999% of them are wrong in my estimation, because scripture is not a single verses, or a single passage, which has the specific wording we like...scripture is total meaning of all the verses read consecutively.
When we point to one passage and say; "Scripture says...", we destroy the synergy of scripture.
The bible was not written in verses, but it was written in context, and context is the only thing which can interpret verses.
I don't mean simply a local context established by reading the verses before and the verses after, but the greater context which is the whole continuing story which runs right through the bible.
At best, any bible that exists today, is a paraphrasing of a doctrinally interpreted translation, and only the greater context of the whole bible, can take the doctrinal edges off of the text.

Not really. If you speak Greek, and l don't know if you do, you will find that the only bible manuscript that has changed because of doctrinally interpreted translation is JW “New World Order’ Bible-.and off-course the latest New age movement “Yahwist” cults, they have various publication.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[markporter]

Hello Mark:
I agree! The answer is not found by the traditional method of finding specific bible verses which happen to have the right words to support a preconceived doctrine, the answer is found in the big picture(the greater context of the bible).
When we consider that the messiah was prophesied to receive the kingdom of his father David, not the kingdom of his father God, we must recognize that the prophecy is refering to the literal, resurrected, Davidic kingdom, the obvious conclusion then has to be that ***The messiah cannot be God***.
Any time Israel backslid and then repented, God always took it back into His favour, but when Israel backslid and split into two enemy kingdoms, they remained enemies(unrepented) to their respective destructions.
According to His own terms in the everlasting(old) covenant, God has been obliged to keep His face turned away from Israel from that time, and cannot aid Israel till it becomes a covenant nation again.
("The divided kingdom" is a misnomer, invented to cover up the fact that national Israel ceased to exist when it split in two. The kingdom was only divided during the last part of Solomon's reign, and when Solomon died, Israel split into two other kingdoms)
The only way that God's everlasting plan to bless all the nations of the world, can continue from where it left off at Solomon's death, is for the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel to be resurrected, from the dead, to repentance.
The only clear messianic prophesy, has the messiah coming to receive the kingdom of his father David, but that does not imply that the messiah is God, or even sent by God, and it couldn't imply that anyway, because God cannot be involved in the resurrection of covenant Israel. that would make God's promises, in His everlasting(old) covenant, lies...and God cannot lie.
Once covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, by the christ and his body of followers, ***without God's aid***, Israel will have been repented, and taken back into God's favour, and God's everlasting plan to bless all the nations of the world will continue.
"Spiritual Israel" has existed in hearts and minds since the fall of literal, national Israel, at the end of Solomon's reign, and the goal of those who have the spirit of the kingdom in their hearts and minds(the spiritual kingdom), is to recruit a large body of people, who have faith that the kingdom is coming(the gospel of the kingdom), and are watching and waiting for the messiah.
When the body of(which watches for the) christ, reaches the numbers which will insure it's successful re-posession of the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, the christ will lead it to victory, and when the final trumpet sounds, indicating that the promised land has been re-taken, then in the twinkling of an eye, all of spiritual Israel will be changed into literal Israel, resurrected from the dead.(like the closing of a realestate transfer, in the twinkling of an eye, a prospective owner becomes a literal owner)
When the messiah makes his triumphal entry into his bride(Jerusalem, made new by being possessed by a people which loves God, and loves one another), and ascends the throne, the kingdom of his father David will have been resurrected...and received.
This obvious, continuing story, which runs through the bible, is not told by quoting single verses, or passages, the use of which simply covers up the true story of the bible, and has spawned 30,000+ doctrinally conflicting denominations and sects.
The bible was not written in verses, but it was certainly written in context...LOL


Right, sure, Jesus' being Messiah doesn't make him God, I'm with you 100% there - but did he just do Messianic things? or did he put himself in a higher position as well? If you ask Wright then Israel not only expected a Davidic Messiah, but they expected the return of YHWH to Zion, and Jesus not only put himself in the role of the first of these, but in the latter as well.

[markporter]

markporter,

Anything that contradicts what Jesus says is NOT worth reading. Jesus CANNOT be "God on earth" because he said that "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and a "Spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39).

His being "Lord of the Sabbath" does NOT make Jesus God.

I think that's a very twisted way of exegeting texts, two very different points are being made in those two places, and I don't think it is responsible just to combine them in that way without considering their contexts.

[Pythagoras]

If you ask Wright then Israel not only expected a Davidic Messiah, but they expected the return of YHWH to Zion, and Jesus not only put himself in the role of the first of these, but in the latter as well.

The notion that 1st century Jews expected God to return to them in flesh and blood cannot seriously be entertained . The Jews were(and still are) very different from the Greeks and Hindus in this regard.

God bless,

[Pythagoras]

Hi John from Ebla,

The scriptures say the "Holy Spirit" the scriptures say ' "Christ" the scriptures say "God"-

And what's your point?

and in the gospel of John Jesus say's, "l and the Father".

Finish the quote: "I and the Father are One." (John 10:30) Similarily, Jesus in John 17:21 says the Saints are one with the Father. Are they God?
Jesus also said "The Father is Greater than me." (John 14:28)

You're interpreting scripture to fit your doctrine. Even Hindus sometimes use the NT to support their doctrines.


There is a difference between and influential power in us, and the very essence of God in Jesus. :blush:

Why is the presence of the holy Spirit('God') in Christ "the very essence of God" in him but the presence of this same holy Spirit('God') in the Saints not "the very essence of God" in them? You're not being consistent .

The scripture’s is what we have, had and will have.

Fine.

The one’s that don't like the scriptures are JW and the Rabbi's- that’s why the latter have the Jewish law of agency.

You keep on making these wild accusations. On the other thread you said Jews believe God is a Chicken and you had "pictures" to prove your point. Aren't you being cuckoo when you make statements like these?


Why should l believe the Rabbi that said "we have no king but Cesar" cut off the messiah and then left with what Rome has given them for the last 2000 years. :ahem:

Nobody is asking you to "believe" the Rabbis. Believe the NT, and read it honestly. You will find that there is no basis for a trinitarian doctrine in it.

Also please stop slandering Jews and Jewish Rabbis.


best wishes,

[Provoker]

Right, sure, Jesus' being Messiah doesn't make him God, I'm with you 100% there - but did he just do Messianic things? or did he put himself in a higher position as well? If you ask Wright then Israel not only expected a Davidic Messiah, but they expected the return of YHWH to Zion, and Jesus not only put himself in the role of the first of these, but in the latter as well.
Right, sure, Jesus' being Messiah doesn't make him God, I'm with you 100% there - but did he just do Messianic things? or did he put himself in a higher position as well? If you ask Wright then Israel not only expected a Davidic Messiah, but they expected the return of YHWH to Zion, and Jesus not only put himself in the role of the first of these, but in the latter as well.
Hello Mark:
Who is Wright?
The only prophesy which is clearly messianic, is recorded in Luke 1:32, and it says that the messiah will receive the kingdom of his father David. This prophesy was made long after the Davidic kingdom had ceased to exist, and specificly refers to a resurrected Davidic kingdom, and therefore we can be sure that it is actually a messianic prophesy.
Since the only prophesy which we can be certain is messianic, was not fulfilled by Jesus, and since it will be the fulfillment of that prophecy which will identify the messiah, Jesus was obviously not the messiah.
Originally, the Judean Jews expected a kingdom-resurrecting-messiah, but lost faith, and interest in the idea, thus becoming the backslidden lost sheep of the house of Israel. They still taught about the coming messiah, but only faithlessly, as a religious myth.
Jesus showed up proclaiming the very same good news of the kingdom that had been proclaimed by the prophet in 6th century BC Babylon(Luke 1:32), and the chief priests and Pharisees became concerned when so many Jews believed Jesus after the resurrection of Lazarus, and so the chief priests and Pharisees had Jesus killed, to keep him from leading his followers in an attack on Rome. The account is recorded in John 11+12. So contrary to the orthodox view that the Jews had Jesus killed because he was not there to resurrect the kingdom, the Jews actually had Jesus killed because they were afraid he would try to resurrect the kingdom...LOL
There is not one word in the bible which suggests that the messiah will come more than once, but the doctrine of the second coming had to be invented to account for the fact that Jesus died before he could resurrect the Davidic kingdom.
What do you think?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Provoker,

Hello Mark:
Who is Wright?
The only prophesy which is clearly messianic, is recorded in Luke 1:32, and it says that the messiah will receive the kingdom of his father David. ...
There is not one word in the bible which suggests that the messiah will come more than once, but the doctrine of the second coming had to be invented to account for the fact that Jesus died before he could resurrect the Davidic kingdom.
What do you think?


כו וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ; וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא, וְקִצּוֹ בַשֶּׁטֶף, וְעַד קֵץ מִלְחָמָה, נֶחֱרֶצֶת שֹׁמֵמוֹת. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


In 9:26 above Daniel hints at the second coming. How could Messiah "reign over the house of his father Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end" (Luke 1:32) if he is also "cut off , and be no more"(Daniel 9:26)? Also note that in AD 70 the Roman prince did indeed come "to destroy the city and the sanctuary", shortly after the cutting off of Messiah as the prophecy says.

best wishes,

[markporter]

The notion that 1st century Jews expected God to return to them in flesh and blood cannot seriously be entertained . The Jews were(and still are) very different from the Greeks and Hindus in this regard.

God bless,

Certainly I agree with you there - but the thing is they expected God to return to his temple, not how they expected him to return.

[John from Ebla]

Certainly I agree with you there - but the thing is they expected God to return to his temple, not how they expected him to return.

And he will
1 am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty' (Revelation 1:8).

Clear in the original Greek that nothing existed before and he will be the end of all things when God is all in all. 1Cor 15:28

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[Provoker]

Hi Provoker,
כו וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ; וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא, וְקִצּוֹ בַשֶּׁטֶף, וְעַד קֵץ מִלְחָמָה, נֶחֱרֶצֶת שֹׁמֵמוֹת. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

In 9:26 above Daniel hints at the second coming. How could Messiah "reign over the house of his father Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end" (Luke 1:32) if he is also "cut off , and be no more"(Daniel 9:26)? Also note that in AD 70 the Roman prince did indeed come "to destroy the city and the sanctuary", shortly after the cutting off of Messiah as the prophecy says.

best wishes,
Hello Pythagoras:
Once one has committed to a doctrine, he can see "hints", which appear to confirm his committment, everywhere he looks, but if those "hints" would not have been recognized as such before the particular "doctrine" appeared, then they may only be conveniently imagined "hints"...LOL
Regarding the messiah ruling forever, I believe that is refering to imputation of the messianic title, as an idiosyncracy of royal succession. God's promise to David, was that his seed would always prosper on his everlasting throne. The "singularity of the word seed" arguement does not fly, since Solomon succeeded David, and he died, and the bible commonly refers to that same use of "seed" as "them", or "they".
It is similar to the titles; "son of David", and "son of God". There is only one person in bible history, who can literally claim to be both the "son of David", and the "son of God", and that is Solomon. Since Solomon was the last king to rule David's kingdom, the messiah who will resurrect David's kingdom, will be Solomon's immediate successor on the Davidic throne, and he will receive, by imputation, the titles of "son of God", and "son of David".
Jesus may very well have been of the **seed of David**, but he was definitely not the **son of David**, a title which he was prematurely given by his followers, and would have actually received if he had resurrected the kingdom.
The point is that the messiah(the son of God and the son of David) can rule the resurrected kingdom forever, and still be a different person every generation.
God is a just, righteous, and unchanging God, Who cannot lie, and Who made everlasting covenants, so we must assume that His everlasting covenants are still in effect, and simply in stages accounted for in the terms of the covenants.
I think that we may be too quick to throw out things which God made everlasting...LOL
What do you think?

[John from Ebla]

Hello Pythagoras:
Once one has committed to a doctrine, he can see "hints", which appear to confirm his committment, everywhere he looks, but if those "hints" would not have been recognized as such before the particular "doctrine" appeared, then they may only be conveniently imagined "hints"...LOL
Regarding the messiah ruling forever, I believe that is refering to imputation of the messianic title, as an idiosyncracy of royal succession. God's promise to David, was that his seed would always prosper on his everlasting throne. The "singularity of the word seed" arguement does not fly, since Solomon succeeded David, and he died, and the bible commonly refers to that same use of "seed" as "them", or "they".
It is similar to the titles; "son of David", and "son of God". There is only one person in bible history, who can literally claim to be both the "son of David", and the "son of God", and that is Solomon. Since Solomon was the last king to rule David's kingdom, the messiah who will resurrect David's kingdom, will be Solomon's immediate successor on the Davidic throne, and he will receive, by imputation, the titles of "son of God", and "son of David".
Jesus may very well have been of the **seed of David**, but he was definitely not the **son of David**, a title which he was prematurely given by his followers, and would have actually received if he had resurrected the kingdom.
The point is that the messiah(the son of God and the son of David) can rule the resurrected kingdom forever, and still be a different person every generation.
God is a just, righteous, and unchanging God, Who cannot lie, and Who made everlasting covenants, so we must assume that His everlasting covenants are still in effect, and simply in stages accounted for in the terms of the covenants.
I think that we may be too quick to throw out things which God made everlasting...LOL
What do you think?

I think your after another "Sabbatai Zevi" Wow! what a big let down :blush: ( loony tunes )

Kind regards
John from Ebla

[Pythagoras]

Hi markpoter,

Certainly I agree with you there - but the thing is they expected God to return to his temple, not how they expected him to return.

And God did return to His temple with the coming of Messiah. 1Corinthians 3:16 & 17 shows how,

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are."

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Provoker,


Once one has committed to a doctrine, he can see "hints", which appear to confirm his committment, everywhere he looks,


This is true of you also. You're committed to a doctrine which rejects Jesus's Messiahship .



Regarding the messiah ruling forever, I believe that is refering to imputation of the messianic title, as an idiosyncracy of royal succession. God's promise to David, was that his seed would always prosper on his everlasting throne.


That's your "particular doctrine". Odds are it developed after the death of Jesus Christ as a reaction against Christianity. There is ample evidence to show that the ancient Jews believed in a preexistent Messiah, the Son of Man of Daniel whohas a throne in Heaven forever.


The "singularity of the word seed" arguement does not fly, since Solomon succeeded David, and he died, and the bible commonly refers to that same use of "seed" as "them", or "they".


Daniel 7:14 says "His (Son of Man) dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Daniel 7:9 says "thrones were set in Heaven". Akiva says this refers to two thrones in Heaven; one for God and the other for Messiah. Messiah is to be eternal just as the angels are everlasting. But you are suggesting there are to be many Messiahs . You're suggesting theincumbent Messiah will die and be replaced by another every two or three generations or so in Heaven!



It is similar to the titles; "son of David", and "son of God". There is only one person in bible history, who can literally claim to be both the "son of David", and the "son of God", and that is Solomon.

And Solomon died so he could not have been the Messiah.



Jesus may very well have been of the **seed of David**, but he was definitely not the **son of David**, a title which he was prematurely given by his followers, and would have actually received if he had resurrected the kingdom.


Daniel says the "Anointed one(Son of Man) will be cut off (die)" (Dan. 9:26) and still reign on the throne of David forever . So anyone claiming to be Messiah will have to die and come back to life and live forever.

The point is that the messiah(the son of God and the son of David) can rule the resurrected kingdom forever, and still be a different person every generation.

There's nothing to warrant such a view. The "singular of the word seed" leaves no room for compromise in this regard.


I think that we may be too quick to throw out things which God made everlasting...LOL



Exactly, like the everlasting Messiah. According to Jewish tradition 7 eternal things were made before the foundation of the world, two of these are the Torah and Messiah.


The doctrine of the many Messiahs had to be invented after the Jews rejected Messiah Jesus. But it creates more problems than it solves. Just . When scripture says "everlasting" it means just that, never ending, just as God is "everlasting" -- not some finite timeframe , a few thousand years psudo- everlasting .


best wishes,

[Provoker]

I think your after another "Sabbatai Zevi" Wow! what a big let down :blush: ( loony tunes )
Hello John:
Don't be so hard on yourself...LOL
All kidding aside, I have no idea who Sabbatai Zevi is, so I missed the joke:-)
and with all due respect John, let me be so bold as to suggest that if you believe by faith, you do not believe by knowledge, and therefore you should keep at least a small part of your mind open, and not dismiss things you do not know about, with knee jerk ad hominem(loony tunes)...LOL
If you would indulge me a little, I would be happy to show you how I came to the conclusions I have, and maybe your could correct me in a spirit of meekness, lest you also fall into my stupidity...LOL

[John from Ebla]

Hello John:
Don't be so hard on yourself...LOL
All kidding aside, I have no idea who Sabbatai Zevi is, so I missed the joke:-)
and with all due respect John, let me be so bold as to suggest that if you believe by faith, you do not believe by knowledge, and therefore you should keep at least a small part of your mind open, and not dismiss things you do not know about, with knee jerk ad hominem(loony tunes)...LOL
If you would indulge me a little, I would be happy to show you how I came to the conclusions I have, and maybe your could correct me in a spirit of meekness, lest you also fall into my stupidity...LOL


Your stupidity? l would not imply that- the loony tune is about history- Sabbatai Zevi

A Germany Jew that led and band of Jew’s, still awaiting their messiah, all around Europe. Believing he was the messiah they sold their belonging and headed for Palestine- it was a big let down. Date 1650 to 1700- it was the biggest gathering of Jews seen in Europe.

According to teaching of Mystical Kabbalah- the messiah is as you said in your post and that is why the Jews had a let down.

Kind regards.

[Provoker]

Hi Pythagoras:
I don't normally deal with one sentence at a time because it tends to dismiss the context which is composed into the the whole post.

Quote:
You're committed to a doctrine which rejects Jesus's Messiahship .

Response:
Well that is not quite true...LOL I am committed to a search for truth, and I will happily change my opinions if I find better evidence that I am wrong, than evidence that I am right.

Quote:

That's your "particular doctrine". Odds are it developed after the death of Jesus Christ as a reaction against Christianity. There is ample evidence to show that the ancient Jews believed in a preexistent Messiah, the Son of Man of Daniel whohas a throne in Heaven forever.

Well, it is my current, tentative, opinion, and I did develop it about 2000 years after the death of Jesus...LOL
And rather than being a reaction against Christianity, it is a reaction for, what I opine to be, "scriptural Christianity".

Quote:

You're suggesting the incumbent Messiah will die and be replaced by another every two or three generations or so in Heaven!

No, I am suggesting that the messiah will come and lead the body of Christ to the possession of the promised land, he will ascend the throne of David, thus resurrecting the nation/kingdom of Israel to repentance, and to the new covenant, which will give resurrected covenant Israel everlasting life.
The messiah(king) will die in due course, as is appointed unto every man, and all the kings who come after him will receive the title of "messiah", so Israel will be ruled by messiah forever...on earth as it is in heaven...amen:-)

Quote:

And Solomon died so he could not have been the Messiah.

In spite of the fact that Solomon died, he was indeed a messiah, and the messiah who succeeds Solomon on the throne, will simply receive Solomon's mantle of messiahship, and he will pass it on when he dies. The only reason that we look forward to *THE* coming messiah, is because there has been no Israel, and no king, for almost 3000 years, and it will be a historical event.

Quote:

Daniel says the "Anointed one(Son of Man) will be cut off (die)" (Dan. 9:26) and still reign on the throne of David forever . So anyone claiming to be Messiah will have to die and come back to life and live forever.

Well that is one interpretation...LOL Just how many places in the bible, is the term "cut off", used to refer to someone's death?
Was Ezekiel claiming to be the messiah when he called himself "son of man"?
"Forever"...refers to how long the resurrected covenant nation of Israel will last, after God has fulfilled His new covenant promise to resurrected Israel.
I have never heard of any prince of the Roman empire, have you?
And last, but not least...men do not die, and return to life thousands of years later...LOL

Quote:

There's nothing to warrant such a view. The "singular of the word seed" leaves no room for compromise in this regard.

The singular of the word "seed", does not actually apply to any real Christian doctrine.

Quote:

According to Jewish tradition 7 eternal things were made before the foundation of the world, two of these are the Torah and Messiah.

I give little consideration to Jewish tradition, when attempting to discover the truth of the bible...LOL
Jewish tradition was the stumbling block which caused the Jews to become the backslidden lost sheep of the house of Israel, which Jesus attempted to save them from.

Quote:

The doctrine of the many Messiahs had to be invented after the Jews rejected Messiah Jesus. But it creates more problems than it solves. Just . When scripture says "everlasting" it means just that, never ending, just as God is "everlasting" -- not some finite timeframe , a few thousand years psudo- everlasting .

There is no doctrine of "the many Messiahs", that I know of. I simply see "messiah" as a title which will exist for as long as resurrected Israel exists...forever.
British monarchs have traditionally been the titular head of the church of England, so it would be correct to say that for the last one thousand years, the head of the church of England has been the British monarch, but it would not mean that there was only one British monarch in the last thousand years...LOL
Incidently, the backslidden Jerusalem Jews did not reject Jesus as the messiah, they had Jesus killed because they were afraid that he might attempt to fulfill the one and only truly messianic prophecy, by leading an attack on Rome, possibly resulting in the Roman massacre of all the Jews(John,11+12). (one man dying for the whole nation)

What do you think?

[Provoker]

According to teaching of Mystical Kabbalah- the messiah is as you said in your post and that is why the Jews had a let down.
Kind regards.
Hello John:
I am not familiar with Mystical Kabbalah, and I formed my opinions from reading the bible story. It sounds like this German Jew you mention, had a similar problem to the JWs around the turn of the last century, and it's the type of problem which comes from basing doctrine on individual verses, and ignoring the greater context.
But remember, there are currently more than 30,000 doctrinally disagreeing Christian denominations, and the only thing that keeps them all from being similarly embarrassed, is that they learned from the JW's mistake, and don't make doctrines which must be fulfilled in their lifetimes...LOL
Incidently, did you notice what all these conflicting denominations have in common when it comes to explaining their doctrines? Yup, you guessed it...they all base their doctrines on individual verses, selected from here and there, and assembled so as to prove their doctrines...LOL
Isn't it about time that Christians faced the fact that all existing bibles are interpretive paraphrases of interpretive paraphrases, and therefore the individual words, and verses, cannot be accurately interpreted individually?
If one reads the bible for the story it tells, the words and verses do not need to be interpreted, because their meaning is revealed in the context as one reads.
What do you think?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Provoker,


"Forever"...refers to how long the resurrected covenant nation of Israel will last, after God has fulfilled His new covenant promise to resurrected Israel.
?

I take the literal meaning of the word "forever" , at face value -- same way the bible says God lives "forever", i.e. never ending. -- You have to morph the meaning of the word "forever" , otherwise it doesn't fit your Messianic conceptions.

I disagree with the trinitarian conception that Messiah is God , but that he is no ordinary human who reigns forever (and therefore lives forever,just like the angels in Heaven live forever) is clearly spelled out in the bible numerous times. Daniel say's Messiah is the Son of Man who deals directly with God in heaven! Do you understand?

Catholics go too far by suggesting Jesus is God, you don't go far enough by saying Messiah will die after reigning for a few decades, like all earthly kings before him. Both conceptions are false and unbiblical in my view.

We have too very different ideas of what and who messiah is. The distance between our two conceptions conceptions is insurmountable.

best wishes,

[Provoker]

Hi Provoker,
We have too very different ideas of what and who messiah is. The distance between our two conceptions conceptions is insurmountable.
best wishes,
Hello Pythagoras:
"Insurmountable" is the kind of word one uses when he is preparing to disassociate himself...LOL
I don't care to discuss where everyone agrees with each other, because the chance of learning anything is quite remote, and a new thought brings out the worst in the regulars...LOL I call those type of forums mutual admiration societies, and I avoid them like the plague.
I prefer to offer my opinions, and my evidence, on forums where I can receive some reasonable discussion in return, rather than preaching...or anger...LOL My opinions are based on what I see as the preponderance of the evidence, and when I discover opinion changing evidence, I begin to offer new opinions for discussion.
This is why I say that I am not committed to a doctrine. My opinions are not based on someone else's scholarship, they are completely based on my own. My opinions regarding God, are too important to simply let someone else do my thinking for me...LOL
If you can give a reasonable explanation of what caused the sovereign nation/kingdom of Israel to disappear from history, and what the remedy is, you may begin to understand where I am coming from.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Provoker,


The Hebrew word used for Messiah's throne and reign is olam which means forever in the literal sense. Many of the Messianic prophecies are senseless if more than one Messiah is in view.

For example,

Psalm 89 "And his throne as the sun before Me; it shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." (Verses 36-37).

Clearly above is not talking about an earthly scccession of many perishable Messianic kings . If so how many human generations of kings are we talking about here? Until the moon is no more?.




His throne was to last “for ever and ever” (Ps. 45:6).

That's "forever" amplified, meaning everlasting.


Psalm 45, This king, “fairer than the children of men” (v. 2)

If there are many Messiahs how can we be sure all of them will be "fairer than the children of men."?

Or how can we guarantee all of them will fit the specific qualifications below:

His reign would be righteous and just. David’s description of his son Solomon (Ps. 72) transcends the human Solomon, whose reign was not just (2 Chronicles 10:11).
.

He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment (Ps. 72:2).

He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor (v. 4).

He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper (v. 12).


“The government shall be upon his shoulders” (Isa. 9:6-7; Hebrew, vv. 5-6).


P.S. Are all of them going to be born in Bethlehem as the prophet Micah specifies?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John:
I am not familiar with Mystical Kabbalah, and I formed my opinions from reading the bible story. It sounds like this German Jew you mention, had a similar problem to the JWs around the turn of the last century, and it's the type of problem which comes from basing doctrine on individual verses, and ignoring the greater context.
But remember, there are currently more than 30,000 doctrinally disagreeing Christian denominations, and the only thing that keeps them all from being similarly embarrassed, is that they learned from the JW's mistake, and don't make doctrines which must be fulfilled in their lifetimes...LOL
Incidently, did you notice what all these conflicting denominations have in common when it comes to explaining their doctrines? Yup, you guessed it...they all base their doctrines on individual verses, selected from here and there, and assembled so as to prove their doctrines...LOL
Isn't it about time that Christians faced the fact that all existing bibles are interpretive paraphrases of interpretive paraphrases, and therefore the individual words, and verses, cannot be accurately interpreted individually?
If one reads the bible for the story it tells, the words and verses do not need to be interpreted, because their meaning is revealed in the context as one reads.
What do you think?

l stick to the original Greek letters written by the apostles- they seem to be the same as the Latin with verses, and the English with verses. The numbers were just inserted in for quick reference- it did not change anything.

You are entiltled to your say and l can see your making a good point to "Pythagoras" so l will just read through the posts and see how things go. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[IncRus]

Exactly the way l would put it. The Kennedy's issue is: they were both of the same nature but one was Father the other was Son- did the Kennedy son have bones of an animal and the Father of a human? No! Did the Kennedy son have a spirit of God and the Father a Spirit of man? No.

The case with Jesus is not the same as with the kennedy's. Can you see a spirit? No, the only way you can see the pressnce of God is if it takes on visible body, and it did, in the body of Jesus- the spirit in that body is the spirit of God- God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) Did They see the spirit? No! They only saw the visable form it took.

John from Ebla,

The Spirit of God is NOT God Himself.

Did you know that Apostle Paul also received the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God was in him? Apostle Paul said, "Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have receivd, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freeely given to us by God" (1 Cor. 2:11-12).

If Jesus were "God on earth," it would make what Jesus said in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 meaningless and thereby make Jesus a liar. Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and a "spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39).

Moreover, if Jesus were "God on earth" it would make John 17:3 FALSE and thereby make Jesus a liar. Jesus was talking to the "ONLY true God" who was in heaven (John 17:1).

[IncRus]

ah but was that intentional or not :huh: you will never know :lol:


Oh well ONWARDS and Upwards .... Didn't Jesus himself ask the very same question this thread is asking

Mark 8
Peter's Confession of Christ
27Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?" 28They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."
29And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."
30And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

Matthew 16 Peter's Confession of Christ
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Luke 9 18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, "Who do the people say that I am?" 19They answered and said, "John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again."
20And He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."
21But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone,

Jesus had already presented to the people who He was


Son of God
The promised Deliverer
Shown them by His power by the miracles He had done
The fact He is called Lord "Kurios"


lady g,

These attributes do NOT make Jesus "God on earth." God Himself acknowledged that Jeus is His beloved son (Matt. 3:17; 17:5). The miracles that Jesus did were done by God Himself THROUGH Jesus (Acts 2:22). God MADE Jesus "Lord" (Acts 2:36).

Mark 9
The Transfiguration
1And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
2Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;
3and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.

What does the transfiguration tell us about Him?


The transfiguration does NOT make what Jesus said about himself (John 8:40) and about God (John 17:3) FALSE.

John 8:58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Jesus was telling the Jews that before Abraham was born, he was "FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20) as "Prince and savior" (Acts 5:31).

John 10 30"I and the Father are one."
31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

why did they want to stone Him?

The Jews did not want to stone Jesus for saying "I and the Father are one." They wanted to stone him for "making himself God" (John 10:33) by saying, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36).

[John from Ebla]

John from Ebla,

The Spirit of God is NOT God Himself.

Did you know that Apostle Paul also received the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God was in him? Apostle Paul said, "Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have receivd, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freeely given to us by God" (1 Cor. 2:11-12).

If Jesus were "God on earth," it would make what Jesus said in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 meaningless and thereby make Jesus a liar. Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and a "spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39).

Moreover, if Jesus were "God on earth" it would make John 17:3 FALSE and thereby make Jesus a liar. Jesus was talking to the "ONLY true God" who was in heaven (John 17:1).

If the spirit of God is not God himself, then please, tell me what God is- A puppet outside of the universe?

God is spirit, and untill you can say why God would use another spirit and not the very essense of himself to do things, it remains that the spirit of God is God. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[IncRus]

If the spirit of God is not God himself, then please, tell me what God is- A puppet outside of the universe?

God is spirit, and untill you can say why God would use another spirit and not the very essense of himself to do things, it remains that the spirit of God is God. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

John from Elba,

I go by what the Bible says. It does NOT tell us WHY God would use "another spirit" and NOT Himself. I can't understand what you mean by "very essence of himself." Isn't His spirit the "very essence of Himself?"

BTW, the Bible says that God HAS 7 spirits that He sends into all the world (Rev. 5:6).

[IncRus]

markporter,

Anything that contradicts what Jesus says is NOT worth reading. Jesus CANNOT be "God on earth" because he said that "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and a "Spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39).

His being "Lord of the Sabbath" does NOT make Jesus God.
I think that's a very twisted way of exegeting texts, two very different points are being made in those two places, and I don't think it is responsible just to combine them in that way without considering their contexts.

markporter,

Whose "context" are you talking about? The reason there are 30,000 denominations in the world today is "context." Because of "context" the Bible is TWISTED every which way to FIT every denomination's FALSE doctrine.

Apostle Paul wrote: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we speak NOT in the words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, COMPARING spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).

While it is NOT a bad thing to consider "context" where applicable, "comparing scriptures (spiritual) with scriptures (spiritual)" to test a doctrine or arrive at a doctrine is evidently the only right thing to do.

[John from Ebla]

John from Elba,

I go by what the Bible says. It does NOT tell us WHY God would use "another spirit" and NOT Himself. I can't understand what you mean by "very essence of himself." Isn't His spirit the "very essence of Himself?"

BTW, the Bible says that God HAS 7 spirits that He sends into all the world (Rev. 5:6).


Yes, his spirit is the very essence (substance) of himself- “Spirit" God is Spirit. The bible says it was God that became flesh not another god- a Spirit is not "people” that is why a ‘Spirit’ God became flesh- not a person God became flesh.

Rev 5.6 is the Son (Lamb)- and they are the same essence (substance) spirit of God. (Do you think God created his attributes or were they always part of his nature?)

Let me ask you- is air still air not matter where it is? Is water still water no matter where it is? Unless you can define (Spirit) God and explain why you assume “Spirit” means ‘essence of a person” and explain why you assume Spirit (God) would be limited to what a person is- l don’t see any reason why not to believe, “ God was in Christ” (2Cor 5:19) :smile:

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[Provoker]

l stick to the original Greek letters written by the apostles- they seem to be the same as the Latin with verses, and the English with verses. The numbers were just inserted in for quick reference- it did not change anything.
Kind regards
John From Ebla
Hello John:
If you are going to stick to the original Greek letters used by the apostles...good luck, because they don't exist.
What you see, in your English bible, is what you get. The common(koine) Greek dialect did not remain the same throughout the ages that new testament writings were being copied and forged, and by the end of the 4th century, first century common Greek had been completely replaced by a virtually new(Byzantine) Greek language.
Erasmus, working at the turn of the 15th century, was a translator, not an assembler, and his Greek new testament was in the common Greek dialect of his day, and would not have even been recognized by first century writers, and of course, the first Latin new testament, was also translated by Erasmus.
When the verse numbers are used for quick reference, they are great, but mostly they are used to separate a convenient phrase or word, from the text, and therefore, from the context.
How many people quote a verse, with an understanding of the story it is part of?
When I became aware of all this, I began to consider the greater bible story as the greater bible context, in which to interpret "verses".

[Provoker]

Hello Pythagoras:
I agree with you that forever means forever, although there is a problem with using everlasting and eternal as synonyms...LOL
God's everlasting(old) covenant was made with "a people", not individuals, and His covenant promises were to "a people", not individuals.
The covenant required "Israel(the people)" to keep His laws, in return for national advancement to great nationhood according to God's plan...but, the law of moses contained specific judgements which would be made on individuals who broke the law, so individual law breaking was not addressed in the everlasting covenant. If individual law breaking could have broken the covenant, Israel would not have gotten past the first few minutes...LOL
God's covenant laws were that national Israel was to love God, and love one another, and they were are exemplified in the Decalogue.
When Israel became divided against it'self, it fell from keeping it's covenant obligations by splitting into two, separate, enemy, nations.
This would not have been a problem however, because God would have been quick to receive them back as soon as they repented...but they did not repent, and remained in a state of civil war until the destruction of the northern nation.
When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the southern nation, the notion was finally put to rest, that either one, or both, of the two enemy nations was under God's covenant protection.
Then, while in captivity in Babylon, it was prophesied that a messiah(king) would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David, and those who believed this "good news of the kingdom", formed a national resurrection movement called Judaism, and began watching, waiting, and preparing for the messiah to come and resurrect the dead Davidic kingdom.
God's promise to David, and later to Solomon, was that He would establish their kingdom forever, and again, God is refering to "a people", and not individuals. A kingdom is a domain within which it's citizens are ruled and protected by the king and his army.
The point is, that God did not say that David would live forever, or that Solomon would live forever, but that He would establish their kingdom to live forever, with their seed always propering on the throne. The future Davidic kings are not promised everlasting life, it is the kingdom which is promised everlasting life, and that it will always have a Davidic king.
God's covenants always concern a people, a nation, all the nations of the world, a kingdom, a body, an assembly, 2 or more gathered together, but they are not exclusive to individuals. That would make God a respecter of persons.
God's everlasting covenant plan for all the nations of the world, is dependant on the nation/kingdom of Israel coming to repentance, so that God's everlasting(old) covenant plan can continue. God cannot give assistance in the resurrection of Israel, because that would be breaking his obligations under the everlasting covenant, and make Him a liar...thus the messiah cannot be God.
From the time of the messianic prophesy, the goal has always been to prepare for the christ, and that means enlarging the body of the christ, so that it will be viable as a force to take back and hold the promised land, when the Christ comes.
By the first century, the Jews who had returned from the captivity, were only paying lip service to kingdom resurrection, and Jesus called them the backslidden lost sheep of the house of Israel, who he came specificly to bring back into the kingdom resurrection fold.
Jesus did not teach one thing differently than the Pharisees, and in fact he endorsed their teaching, but he taught that the coming messiah, and the coming resurrection of the kingdom, was not just a religious myth, but was actually going to happen, and he and his apostles were converting the backslidden Jews to the cause. Jesus was making them "true Jews", just as later, Paul was making "true Jews" out of gentiles.
The Romans were perfectly happy for the Jews to pay lip service to a mythical messiah, and a mythical kingdom, but Jesus presented a big problem to them, and to the the chief priests and Pharisees who prospered under the Romans, and so they plotted, and killed Jesus, before he could make an attempt to conquer Rome and resurrect the kingdom.
Regardless of the stories that 30,000+ disagreeing denominations twist out of their single verses, this is the consistent, continuous story of the bible, which I am sure that you recognize when it is not presented as a series of individual verses.
The universal Roman religion, an official agency of the Roman government, hid this extremely obvious story, by teaching the story the way they wanted it taught, and refusing to allow the people to read for themselves. By the time the scriptures became accessible to all, the Roman version was so intrenched, that the real story of the bible could not be recognized, even though it is there as plain as day, before our very noses.
Covenant salvation is for Israel(the Jew) first, and eventually for all the nations of the world(Greeks), and personal salvation is an abstract principle meaning that one has become converted to the gospel of the kingdom, and is part of spiritual Israel, watching, waiting, and preparing for national salvation to make him part of literal Israel, resurrected from the dead.
What do you think?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Provoker,

Hello Pythagoras:
I agree with you that forever means forever, although there is a problem with using everlasting and eternal as synonyms...LOL
?

Good, we can agree "forever" means "forever" . There is going to be an infinite number of earthly Messiahs dying and succeeding to the throne of David ? Will this infinite series of Messiahs all be "wonderful councellors",all of them "princes of peace"? And will all of them be born in Bethelehem ?

best wishes,

[Provoker]

Hi Provoker,



Good, we can agree "forever" means "forever" . There is going to be an infinite number of earthly Messiahs dying and succeeding to the throne of David ? Will this infinite series of Messiahs all be "wonderful councellors",all of them "princes of peace"? And will all of them be born in Bethelehem ?

best wishes,
Hello Pythagoras:
The prophesy in Mica refers to the family of a man by the name of Bethlehem, who's grandmother was named Ephrata. "Bethlehem" was the name of one of the families which returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity.
The prophesy says; "though you are small among the thousands of Judea", I suggest that there were not thousands of towns in Judea, but there were definitely thousands of families in Judea.
The fact that a town by the name of Bethlehem existed, simply means that it was named after that particular family.
Aside from that, it is not even certain that the Mica prophesy refers to the messiah who is prophesied to resurrect the Davidic kingdom.
In any case, the "saviour messiah", the one who will resurrect the Davidic kingdom after the thousands of years it has been dead, is the messiah of prophesy. Not every messiah king of resurrected Israel, will be the saviour...only the first one...who will be Solomon's immediate successor on David's throne.
Saul was a messiah, David was a messiah, Solomon was a messiah, Cyrus of Persia was a messiah, and every evangelical minister who claims to be anointed, is claiming to be a messiah...LOL
There have been many messiahs, but there will only be one saviour messiah who will resurrect the kingdom.
I know that you are not buying any of this Pythagoras, and I understand completely, but do you not recognize all the familiar aspects of the story as I relate it, and do you not see how smoothly and consistently the story flows, and with what continuity it continues, right through the book of Revelation?
Sure, the way I tell it does not fit with the orthodox interpretation, but that may be the fatal flaw in orthodoxy...Interpretation should always be made in accordance with the context, not the other way round. People who give lip service to interpreting "in context", usually fight tooth and nail with me, to make the greater context of the bible, inadmissable...LOL
What do you really think?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John:
If you are going to stick to the original Greek letters used by the apostles...good luck, because they don't exist.
What you see, in your English bible, is what you get. The common(koine) Greek dialect did not remain the same throughout the ages that new testament writings were being copied and forged, and by the end of the 4th century, first century common Greek had been completely replaced by a virtually new(Byzantine) Greek language.
Erasmus, working at the turn of the 15th century, was a translator, not an assembler, and his Greek new testament was in the common Greek dialect of his day, and would not have even been recognized by first century writers, and of course, the first Latin new testament, was also translated by Erasmus.
When the verse numbers are used for quick reference, they are great, but mostly they are used to separate a convenient phrase or word, from the text, and therefore, from the context.
How many people quote a verse, with an understanding of the story it is part of?
When I became aware of all this, I began to consider the greater bible story as the greater bible context, in which to interpret "verses".


Thanks, l don’t look at the English- l see the reproduction of the original in Greek, there were copies, circulated and reproduced.(then some time latter the copies of the Greek were translated to Latin) If this is not possible, then neither is there such thing as a Jew or Israel- because you don't have the original writings. So why bother about a Messiah for the Jew, it’s all a fabricated lie.

l humbly say; “Do something better with your time” why discuss a Messiah for the Jews? Where are the original writing? :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[roddmann]

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am." Since the Jewish crowd took up stones, they apparently understood Jesus to be making Himself equal to God.


Yes He did.

Mat 12:8 "For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath."

No Jew would call Himself "lord of the sabbath" if He didn't believe Himself to be God.

[Provoker]

Thanks, l don’t look at the English- l see the reproduction of the original in Greek, there were copies, circulated and reproduced.(then some time latter the copies of the Greek were translated to Latin) If this is not possible, then neither is there such thing as a Jew or Israel- because you don't have the original writings. So why bother about a Messiah for the Jew, it’s all a fabricated lie.

l humbly say; “Do something better with your time” why discuss a Messiah for the Jews? Where are the original writing? :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla
Hello John:
What better thing could I do, than be an honest bible scholar?
"all a fabricated lie" is an extreme position John, and I don't believe that for a minute. What I believe is that all things must be proven, at least as far as the evidence can prove it, and that an honest bible scholar will not put his head in the sand, but will address the fact that new testament scriptures have been doctrinally interpreted and paraphrased several times in due course, before being published as part of the bible.
One who wants to know the truth of the bible, rather than just the parts of the bible which tend to confirm his preconceived doctrines, will do a little detective work and find a way to "prove all things", and that way will always be in understanding the context. If there is an unmistakable story which begins in Genesis, and continues with continuity through the rest of the old testament, and comes to a logical conclusion in Revelation, then the only honest way to treat it is as the greater context of the bible, which has the ability to confirm new testament scriptures, or expose them as errors.
Doctrines which are unique to the new testament, and cannot be confirmed in the old testament, without turning historical events into "types" which could never have been recognized before the unique doctrines appeared, must stand up to greater scrutiny.
There are many doctrines, built on new testament writings, which have far more in common with the pagan religions of the Roman empire, than anything one can find in the old testament writings, and if you don't like to discuss "unorthodox" things like that, I humbly suggest that you stick to "orthodox" forums.
I don't have any special knowledge that the bible contains a *true* story, but the fact remains that it does, and will always, contain a completely obvious, but purposely covered up, consistent, chronological, historical story...which is the greater context in which all scripture was written.
Personally, I would think that discussion of such "unorthodox" things, would give one a chance to take inventory of his bible knowledge, and prepare him for even greater challenges to his dogma.
We don't have to agree, to discuss...LOL
What do you think?

[IncRus]

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am." Since the Jewish crowd took up stones, they apparently understood Jesus to be making Himself equal to God.

roddman,

Even before Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM," the Jews already wanted to kill Jesus because he NOT only broke the Sabbath but he also said God was his Father which the Jews understood as making himself equal with God (John 5:18) - NOT by saying "I AM."

When Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone him again after he said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:31,30), they told him that they wanted to stone him because, "he being a MAN, makes himself God (blasphemes)" (John 10:33).

People think that Jesus made himself God (committed blasphemy) when he said "I and the Father are one." That's FALSE! The TRUTH is, the Jews THOUGHT Jesus "made himself God" (blasphemed) when he said "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36).

[Provoker]

roddman,

Even before Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM," the Jews already wanted to kill Jesus because he NOT only broke the Sabbath but he also said God was his Father which the Jews understood as making himself equal with God (John 5:18) - NOT by saying "I AM."

When Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone him again after he said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:31,30), they told him that they wanted to stone him because, "he being a MAN, makes himself God (blasphemes)" (John 10:33).

People think that Jesus made himself God (committed blasphemy) when he said "I and the Father are one." That's FALSE! The TRUTH is, the Jews THOUGHT Jesus "made himself God" (blasphemed) when he said "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36).
Hello IncRus:
What you are saying is completely orthodox, but it does not agree with the greater context. Let me explain:
When Solomon ascended David's throne, God specificly made Solomon His son. This is recorded several places in the old testament, but few Christians are aware of it because it is seldom mentioned in any Christian discussion.
King Solomon was "The son of God", and since Solomon was David's immediate offspring, Solomon was also "The son of David". He is the only person mentioned in the bible, who can make this literal claim.
Solomon was the last king on the Davidic throne, because when Solomon died, David's kingdom split into two, separate, enemy kingdoms, which never repented by returning to loving God, and loving one another, but both went separately down to national destruction.
The prophesy that a messiah would come and resurrect the Davidic kingdom, meant that a successor to king Solomon was coming. The king who will be Solomon's immediate successor on David's throne, will receive Solomon's titles by imputation, according to the rules of royal succession, therefore the messiah will bear the titles of "Son of God", and "Son of David".
Jesus' followers believed that Jesus would resurrect the Davidic kingdom, and therefore they refered to him as the son of God, and the son of David, even though he would not officially receive those titles until he resurrected the kingdom and ascended David's throne.
If the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he said that he was the son of God, or the son of David, it was not because he made himself equal with God, and that could only have been a trumped up charge, or a charge by Jews who did not know their scripture.
While the first century Jerusalem Jews gave lip service to the coming messiah, and kingdom resurrection, they were really not interested in going to war with Rome, because Rome allowed them to; live on their traditional homeland, have a king, a temple, a priesthood, and live under their own laws, so they could see no point in starting trouble with Rome.
The reason that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, is clearly explained in John 11+12, where it is explained that the chief priests and Pharisees were afraid that if Jesus raised a large enough following, he might launch an attack on Rome, and if the attack was not successful, the Roman army might come and kill all the Jews. So, they plotted from that day to kill Jesus, because they concluded that if they killed Jesus before he could march against Rome, all the Jews would be saved by the death of one man.
There are a lot of familiar single verses in the John 11+12 passage, but their orthodox meanings tend to change when the story is read in context.
How about checking out the scriptural claims I make, and tell me what you think?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John:
What better thing could I do, than be an honest bible scholar?
"all a fabricated lie" is an extreme position John, and I don't believe that for a minute. What I believe is that all things must be proven, at least as far as the evidence can prove it, and that an honest bible scholar will not put his head in the sand, but will address the fact that new testament scriptures have been doctrinally interpreted and paraphrased several times in due course, before being published as part of the bible.
One who wants to know the truth of the bible, rather than just the parts of the bible which tend to confirm his preconceived doctrines, will do a little detective work and find a way to "prove all things", and that way will always be in understanding the context. If there is an unmistakable story which begins in Genesis, and continues with continuity through the rest of the old testament, and comes to a logical conclusion in Revelation, then the only honest way to treat it is as the greater context of the bible, which has the ability to confirm new testament scriptures, or expose them as errors.
Doctrines which are unique to the new testament, and cannot be confirmed in the old testament, without turning historical events into "types" which could never have been recognized before the unique doctrines appeared, must stand up to greater scrutiny.
There are many doctrines, built on new testament writings, which have far more in common with the pagan religions of the Roman empire, than anything one can find in the old testament writings, and if you don't like to discuss "unorthodox" things like that, I humbly suggest that you stick to "orthodox" forums.
I don't have any special knowledge that the bible contains a *true* story, but the fact remains that it does, and will always, contain a completely obvious, but purposely covered up, consistent, chronological, historical story...which is the greater context in which all scripture was written.
Personally, I would think that discussion of such "unorthodox" things, would give one a chance to take inventory of his bible knowledge, and prepare him for even greater challenges to his dogma.
We don't have to agree, to discuss...LOL
What do you think?


I think you changed your attitude for the better. What ever applies to the “New testament” applies to the “Old”

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Provoker]

I think you changed your attitude for the better.
Hello John:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds like a positive thing...LOL
What ever applies to the “New testament” applies to the “Old”

Of course, I agree completely with that, but the reason I make a distinction between the two, is because the old testament was well established before the Romans had a stake in the holy land, but the new testament writings were doctrinally selected by bishops of the "official" universal religion of the Roman empire, who attempted to destroy, by burning, the writings they rejected.
We know, from a letter by Clement, that he removed a passage from one of the gospels, because it could be construed to conflict with accepted church doctrine.
We don't know how much of that type of editing went on, but we do know that it did, so it is important to consider the greater context of the old testament, when interpreting the new.
There are very many Christians who would be happy to throw out the old testament, and use the new testament exclusively, and that is because they see the old testament as Jewish, and incompatible with the "Christian" new testament, and the church does little to discourage that kind of thinking.
However, for those who believe that the OT and NT belong together in the same book, they must assume that there is a reason for it, and consider the OT as the context in which the NT was written.
What do you think?

[IncRus]

roddman,

Even before Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM," the Jews already wanted to kill Jesus because he NOT only broke the Sabbath but he also said God was his Father which the Jews understood as making himself equal with God (John 5:18) - NOT by saying "I AM."

When Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone him again after he said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:31,30), they told him that they wanted to stone him because, "he being a MAN, makes himself God (blasphemes)" (John 10:33).

People think that Jesus made himself God (committed blasphemy) when he said "I and the Father are one." That's FALSE! The TRUTH is, the Jews THOUGHT Jesus "made himself God" (blasphemed) when he said "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36).

Hello IncRus:
What you are saying is completely orthodox, but it does not agree with the greater context. Let me explain:
When Solomon ascended David's throne, God specificly made Solomon His son. This is recorded several places in the old testament, but few Christians are aware of it because it is seldom mentioned in any Christian discussion.
King Solomon was "The son of God", and since Solomon was David's immediate offspring, Solomon was also "The son of David". He is the only person mentioned in the bible, who can make this literal claim.
Solomon was the last king on the Davidic throne, because when Solomon died, David's kingdom split into two, separate, enemy kingdoms, which never repented by returning to loving God, and loving one another, but both went separately down to national destruction.
The prophesy that a messiah would come and resurrect the Davidic kingdom, meant that a successor to king Solomon was coming. The king who will be Solomon's immediate successor on David's throne, will receive Solomon's titles by imputation, according to the rules of royal succession, therefore the messiah will bear the titles of "Son of God", and "Son of David".
Jesus' followers believed that Jesus would resurrect the Davidic kingdom, and therefore they refered to him as the son of God, and the son of David, even though he would not officially receive those titles until he resurrected the kingdom and ascended David's throne.

If the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he said that he was the son of God, or the son of David, it was not because he made himself equal with God, and that could only have been a trumped up charge, or a charge by Jews who did not know their scripture.
While the first century Jerusalem Jews gave lip service to the coming messiah, and kingdom resurrection, they were really not interested in going to war with Rome, because Rome allowed them to; live on their traditional homeland, have a king, a temple, a priesthood, and live under their own laws, so they could see no point in starting trouble with Rome.
The reason that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, is clearly explained in John 11+12, where it is explained that the chief priests and Pharisees were afraid that if Jesus raised a large enough following, he might launch an attack on Rome, and if the attack was not successful, the Roman army might come and kill all the Jews. So, they plotted from that day to kill Jesus, because they concluded that if they killed Jesus before he could march against Rome, all the Jews would be saved by the death of one man.
There are a lot of familiar single verses in the John 11+12 passage, but their orthodox meanings tend to change when the story is read in context.
How about checking out the scriptural claims I make, and tell me what you think?

Hello Provoker,

I agree with you. Of course, the Jews knew that Jesus was NOT making himself equal with God when he said God was his Father (John 5:18). The Jews also knew that Jesus was NOT making himself God when he said "I am the Son of God."

But the Jews PLOTTED to kill Jesus because the high priest Caiaphas "prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and NOT for THAT nation only, but also that he would gather together in one BODY the children of God that are scattered abroad" (John 11:50-52 TEV). And they were afraid that "the Romans might come and take away both their place and thei nation" (John 11:48).

Therefore, the Jews trumped up these charges and FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY, a crime under Jewish law that warrants the death penalty (John 19:7).

[Provoker]

the Jews PLOTTED to kill Jesus because the high priest Caiaphas "prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and NOT for THAT nation only, but also that he would gather together in one BODY the children of God that are scattered abroad" (John 11:50-52 TEV). And they were afraid that "the Romans might come and take away both their place and thei nation" (John 11:48).

Hello IncRus:
It is important to recognize the fact that while the nation/kingdom of Israel existed, the office of the high priest was an official government position, and the government was tied into the everlasting(old) covenant. When national(covenant) Israel ceased to exist, the covenant was broken and it's government, including the high priest, ceased to exist also.
While the two enemy nations, resulting from the fall of national Israel, continued the government practices of fallen Israel, they were simply copying the, no longer existing, covenant government.
When both of those enemy nations were destroyed, and came under the ultimate rule of foreigners, they were allowed to continue in those same practices, but then it was simply ritual based on tradition.
The Seleucids were the first foreign rulers to use the office of the high priest to control the Judean Jews, but the practice was continued even by the Maccabean kings who took the office for themselves.
The point I am trying to make here is that Ciaphas served as high priest at the pleasure of Rome, and he, nor Herod, nor Herod's temple, were endorsed by God, because God had His face turned away from Israel.
If Ciaphas was prophecying, he was prophecying for Rome, because Rome was his only master.
If all the Jews followed Jesus, and Jesus taught them to love their enemies, then Rome would have happily endorsed Jesus, but Ciaphas knew that if all the Jews believed Jesus, Jesus would be emboldened ***to do something*** which would cause the Roman army to kill all the Jews.
Now let the context of the situation tell you what that ***something*** was, which Jesus might do, which would cause the Romans to come and kill all the Jews.
If you read the whole passage, in John 11, as a story, without getting hung up on the obviously added "prophecy" comment, the context will become clear.
It is quite clear that Jesus was to die(before he could do **something** whatever it was), to save all the Jews, specificly, from death at the hands of the Roman army.

[JAY-PC]

Over and over again I see the same thing on these threads that ask the question “is Jesus God,” if you take the Bible as the word of God then the answer is YES he is God. What that means is a different question.

John 1:1 says he is God
2 Peter 1:1 says he is God
Hebrews chapter 1 says he is God

Did Jesus say he was God? He said and claimed a lot that would not be true of anyone who was not God. He controlled nature, received worship, forgave sins. Ect.

What does it mean that Jesus is God? That is a better question.

[IncRus]

Over and over again I see the same thing on these threads that ask the question “is Jesus God,” if you take the Bible as the word of God then the answer is YES he is God. What that means is a different question.

John 1:1 says he is God
2 Peter 1:1 says he is God
Hebrews chapter 1 says he is God

Did Jesus say he was God? He said and claimed a lot that would not be true of anyone who was not God. He controlled nature, received worship, forgave sins. Ect.

What does it mean that Jesus is God? That is a better question.

JAY-PC,

John 1:1 does NOT have the name or word Jesus in it. John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus WAS the WORD that was WITH God in the beginning and WAS God.

1 Peter 1:3 says that Jesus HAS a "God and Father." This God and Father of Jesus is the "ONLY true God" (John 17:3). Therefore, 2 Peter 1:1 is a MISTRANSLATION. It should have read, "OF our God and OF our Savior Jesus Christ."

Of himself, Jesus said, "BVu now you seek to kill ME, a MAN..." (John 8:40).

[JAY-PC]

JAY-PC,

John 1:1 does NOT have the name or word Jesus in it. John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus WAS the WORD that was WITH God in the beginning and WAS God.

1 Peter 1:3 says that Jesus HAS a "God and Father." This God and Father of Jesus is the "ONLY true God" (John 17:3). Therefore, 2 Peter 1:1 is a MISTRANSLATION. It should have read, "OF our God and OF our Savior Jesus Christ."

Of himself, Jesus said, "BVu now you seek to kill ME, a MAN..." (John 8:40).




Are you saying THEOS (God) was not used of Jesus?

John 1:1 says the Word was THEOS. Look at John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The LOGOS or “Word” is the Son (Jesus). So John 1:1 does say Jesus is THEOS (God).

2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Look at the Greek and compare it with 2 Peter 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The two are identical except one uses God and the other uses Lord. If you want to say that 2 Peter 1:1 it to be translated “of our God and of our savior Jesus Christ” you have to be consistent and do the same with 2 Peter 1:11.

(John 20:27-29 ESV) Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Here is a prophecy concerning the Christ.
(Isaiah 9:6 ESV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Anyone who says that Jesus is not called God in the Bible is just plain wrong. Sorry.

But ask the better question “what does that mean that he is called God?”

[Provoker]

Hello Jay-PC:
"Just plain wrong" here...LOL
Orthodox doctrine simply assumes that John 1:1 means that Jesus is THEOS.
"Logos"(an idea, or concept) is simply a scriptural definition of a spirit...which God is.
When a prophesy was made in the first person of God, it was believed to have been God's own "words", and the message of the prophesy revealed an idea, or concept(logos) of God, and that is probably why "logos" came to be wrongly translated as "word".
When God's words, through prophesy, predicted the coming of a person, then when that person arrived, God's word/prophesy was fulfilled "in the flesh", thus the metaphorical expression; "God's word became flesh and dwelt among us".
Normally, an interpreting translator should paraphrase culturally exclusive metaphores so that their proper meaning is conveyed in English, but when the cultural meaning is not clear, or not agreed upon, I think they are translated more or less word for word, thus leaving their real meanings open for debate.
Regarding the use of the word "God", I suggest that it is simply a title of great respect, and does not necessarily imply the attributes normally applied to the Judeo/Christian God. Scripture tells us that there are many gods, but that the Judeo/Christian God is jealous, and commands His subjects not to put any of the other gods before Him. The scriptural "one God" principle, may simply represent an anti-trinitarian sentiment...LOL
Regarding the passage where Thomas calls Jesus "his" God, Jesus had just pointed out that he was flesh and bone to prove that he was not a spirit, and we know that God is a spirit, and not a man, that he should be subject to the limitations of man.

[JAY-PC]

You can reinterpret John 1:1 all you like and you can try and discount Thomas' words as whatever and you can ignore the Greek in 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:11 and you can conclude that Jesus was not God on earth. I can’t force anyone to believe anything. It seems that you’re trying to explain away what scripture plainly says. The cold hard fact is that the word "THEOS" (God) is used in reference to Jesus.

[IncRus]

JAY-PC,

John 1:1 does NOT have the name or word Jesus in it. John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus WAS the WORD that was WITH God in the beginning and WAS God.

1 Peter 1:3 says that Jesus HAS a "God and Father." This God and Father of Jesus is the "ONLY true God" (John 17:3). Therefore, 2 Peter 1:1 is a MISTRANSLATION. It should have read, "OF our God and OF our Savior Jesus Christ."

Of himself, Jesus said, "But now you seek to kill ME, a MAN..." (John 8:40).

Are you saying THEOS (God) was not used of Jesus?

I am NOT saying that THEOS (God) was not used of Jesus. That does NOT mean, however, that the use of THEOS (God) of Jesus is CORRECT and TRUE.

John 1:1 says the Word was THEOS. Look at John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The LOGOS or “Word” is the Son (Jesus). So John 1:1 does say Jesus is THEOS (God).

I DON'T believe that John 1:1 says that Jesus is THEOS (God). John 1:1 does NOT tell us that Jesus WAS the WORD that was WITH God and WAS God BEFORE he was born.

WORD is simply an IDEA that usually comes out of someone's mouth. Thus, in John 1:1, John is simply telling us that the IDEA that was WITH God in the beginning CAME OUT of His mouth and WAS God because it had the authority and power of God who SPOKE it. In John 1:14, John is telling us that this IDEA or WORD was FULFILLED with the birth of Jesus.

What was that IDEA or WORD that came out of God's mouth and was FULFILLED with the birth of Jesus? You can find the answer in Isaiah 7:14.

2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Look at the Greek and compare it with 2 Peter 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The Greek is NOT spiritual. Apostle Paul teaches us to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13) or "compare scripture with scripture." John 8:40 says Jesus is a MAN and John 17:3 says the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God.

The two are identical except one uses God and the other uses Lord. If you want to say that 2 Peter 1:1 it to be translated “of our God and of our savior Jesus Christ” you have to be consistent and do the same with 2 Peter 1:11.

2 Peter 1:1 talks about the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God and the RIGHTEOUESNESS of Jesus. 2 Peter 1:11 talks about ENTRANCE to the kingdom of Jesus. Thus, it does NOT have to be consistent with 2 Peter 1:1.

BTW, Lord does NOT mean God. God MADE Jesus Lord (Acts 2:346).

(John 20:27-29 ESV) Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Thomas' statement was an "expression of belief" that Jesus had indeed RISEN. Please refer to John 20:25. If you will notice, Thomas did NOT put his hand into Jesus' side, yet, because of his statement, Jesus knew offhand that he believed because he has SEEN him.

Here is a prophecy concerning the Christ.
(Isaiah 9:6 ESV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah would NOT write anything to CONTRADICT Jesus. Neither would Jesus say anything to CONTRADICT Isaiah. Isaiah wrote God's words just as Jesus SPOKE what God COMMANDED him to say or speak (John 12:49-50). Isaiah wrote that there is ONLY one God (Isaiah 45:21). Therefore, Isaiah 9:6 is a MISTRANSLATION.

Anyone who says that Jesus is not called God in the Bible is just plain wrong. Sorry.

Of course. But NOBODY says that.

But ask the better question “what does that mean that he is called God?”

This only means that Trinity-biased translators tried very hard to make it look like Jesus is God. It also means that people who believe in the Trinity have NOT come to the TRUE knowledge that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[JAY-PC]

IncRus are you a Greek or Hebrew scholar and / or a translator?

If you are then I will accept your statement that these passages are mistranslated if you are not then how do you know that these passages are mistranslated and what translation do you read?

[IncRus]

IncRus are you a Greek or Hebrew scholar and / or a translator?

If you are then I will accept your statement that these passages are mistranslated if you are not then how do you know that these passages are mistranslated and what translation do you read?

JAY-PC,

I am neither Greek, Hebrew nor a Bible translator. But I am a DISCIPLE of Christ who "BELIEVES in him and ABIDES in his words" (John 8:31). I also happen to believe what John writes in 2 John 9 which says, "whoever transgresses and does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ does NOT have God."

These passages are MISTRANSLATIONS because they CONTRADICT what Jesus TAUGHT in John 8:40 and John 17:3. I believe that Apostle Peter was a DISCIPLE of Christ who would NOT dare or think to CONTRADICT his master. Apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a MAN (Acts 2:22). Apostle Peter also TAUGHT that Jesus HAS a "God and Father" (2 Peter 1:3).

God says through the prophet Isaiah that "there is NO God beside Him" (Isaiah 45:21). Thus, Isaiah 9:6 is CONTRADICTED by Isaiah 45:21 and subsequently by John 17:3.

[JAY-PC]

IncRus thank you for your response, I don’t agree with your opinion concerning the idea that these passages are mistranslated but I do respect your views. I still believe that the Greek in 2 Peter 1:1 states that Jesus is both God and Savior and in 2 Peter 1:1 Lord and Savior. The reason I brought these two passages up is because they are identical in the Greek the only difference is in 1:1 it says God (THEOS) and in 1:11 it says Lord (KURIOS).

2Peter 1:1 …………… του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

2Peter 1:11 …………. του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου


What translation of the Bible do you use? I use the ESV most often.

[IncRus]

IncRus thank you for your response, I don’t agree with your opinion concerning the idea that these passages are mistranslated but I do respect your views. I still believe that the Greek in 2 Peter 1:1 states that Jesus is both God and Savior and in 2 Peter 1:1 Lord and Savior. The reason I brought these two passages up is because they are identical in the Greek the only difference is in 1:1 it says God (THEOS) and in 1:11 it says Lord (KURIOS).

2Peter 1:1 …………… του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

2Peter 1:11 …………. του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου


What translation of the Bible do you use? I use the ESV most often.

JAY-PC,

I use ANY Bible version that CONFORMS with what Jesus said as recorded in the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As I said, 2 Peter 1:1 refers to the RIGHTEOUSNESS of BOTH God and Jesus, our Savior. 2 Peter 1:11 refers to ENTERING the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God and Lord are NOT synonymous. God is the CREATOR of MAN (Gen. 1:27). God COMMANDED the ancient Israelites to call Him "Lord." Lord means "master."

God CREATED Jesus, a MAN (John 8:40). God MADE Jesus, the MAN, both "Lord (master) and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

Jesus said to the Father (John 17:1), "And eternal life means knowing YOU, the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ, the one YOU sent" (John 17:3 TEV). Therefore, Jesus is NOT "God and Savior." He is "Lord and Savior."

[John from Ebla]

God CREATED Jesus, a MAN (John 8:40). God MADE Jesus, the MAN, both "Lord (master) and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

Jesus said to the Father (John 17:1), "And eternal life means knowing YOU, the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ, the one YOU sent" (John 17:3 TEV). Therefore, Jesus is NOT "God and Savior." He is "Lord and Savior."


Correction 1) God did not created Jesus. the man Jesus was born human like all humans. So he was not created he was born. (Adam was created- all humans after him come into existences through birth. Created and birth are not the same)

Correction 2) Peter was telling the Jews (that tried to stone him before his death) that God the Father has made Jesus the man they tried to stone (because he said "l am" ) Lord

Now why did God the father have to make him Lord? Because he was in the form of God Phil 2:6 (see also John 1:1 "The word was God") and He stripped Himself of the rightful dignity and became human Phil 2:7- agrees with John 1:1-3,10,14

What Peter said in Act 2:6 is what Jesus asked the Father in John 17:5. He received back his Glory of the immortal God/word (John 1:1-3) that created all things.

While he was human, his spirit had a mortal dieing body,like all humans, but after resurrection he human body was no longer moral, but immortal and said “l am the first and last” Rev 1:17 and Isaiah 44:6 There is only one first and last, and he is God

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Xelsorsior]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

On the other hand, if you say that Jesus was NOT God on earth, was he ever God BEFORE he came to earth or is he God NOW that he is sitting at the right hand of God? Please show scripure to support your answer, if any.

We all agree that Jesus was TRUE man on earth, don't we?

I will take the stand that you want to know the truth concerning Christ Jesus because you are a sincere individual with the heart of wanting to be a better Christian. Please read John: Chapter one; Verses 1-18.

Jesus made the statement of how long would He have to tolerate this people(true man) because of their lack of understanding and disbelief. You seem to want everyone to find the answers in Scripture for you. Why not read it for yourself and find these basic answers to the questions that you have asked. If you would read the Scriptures daily and ask for the Holy Spirit of God to guide you in your learning and in your growing of faith then you could teach these basic answers to people yourself instead of asking them.

[IncRus]

God CREATED Jesus, a MAN (John 8:40). God MADE Jesus, the MAN, both "Lord (master) and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

Jesus said to the Father (John 17:1), "And eternal life means knowing YOU, the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ, the one YOU sent" (John 17:3 TEV). Therefore, Jesus is NOT "God and Savior." He is "Lord and Savior."

Correction 1) God did not created Jesus. the man Jesus was born human like all humans. So he was not created he was born. (Adam was created- all humans after him come into existences through birth. Created and birth are not the same)

John from Ebla,

The Bible says, "God CREATED MAN" (Gen. 1:27). Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). If Jesus is a MAN, therefore, it follows that God CREATED Jesus.

God CREATES people and things in various ways. God CREATED Adam by using clay. God CREATED Eve by using one of Adam's ribs. God CREATED Jesus by using His Holy Spirit. God CREATED you and me by using our parents.

Correction 2) Peter was telling the Jews (that tried to stone him before his death) that God the Father has made Jesus the man they tried to stone (because he said "l am" ) Lord

If God the Father has MADE Jesus the MAN "Lord," then Jesus, the MAN is NOT God the Father. Therefore, Jesus the MAN is NOT God because the God who MADE Jesus "Lord" said, "...beside me, there is NO God" (Isaiah 44:6).

Now why did God the father have to make him Lord? Because he was in the form of God Phil 2:6 (see also John 1:1 "The word was God") and He stripped Himself of the rightful dignity and became human Phil 2:7- agrees with John 1:1-3,10,14

The Bible teaches that "God PUT all things under Christ's feet and gave him to the church as supreme LORD over ALL things" (Eph. 1:22 Today's English Version). God MADE Jesus "Lord" over the church, "which is his BODY..." (Eph. 1:23) in whom God WILLS to "gather together ALL things in ONE with Christ as HEAD" (Eph. 1:9-10). The Bible teaches that "Christ is the HEAD of the church, his BODY" (Col. 1:18).

Apostle Paul says Jesus is "in the form of God" because as "supreme Lord", he had "authority over ALL flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as God has given him" (John 17:2).

But despite his awesome power, Jesus did NOT boast about it. He did NOT walk the earth like the "supreme Lord" that he was. Instead, he humbled himself and became obedient to God's WILL to DIE for the CHURCH (Eph. 5:25) over which he ruled as supreme Lord.

What Peter said in Act 2:6 is what Jesus asked the Father in John 17:5. He received back his Glory of the immortal God/word (John 1:1-3) that created all things.

This is just your opinion. There is NO scripture to back it up.

While he was human, his spirit had a mortal dieing body,like all humans, but after resurrection he human body was no longer moral, but immortal and said “l am the first and last” Rev 1:17 and Isaiah 44:6 There is only one first and last, and he is God

Jesus' becoming immortal does NOT make him God. In fact, those who will be saved when Jesus comes again will change into immortality in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor. 15:51-54).

The one who said, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is NO God" in Isaiah 44:6, is God, the Father who MADE Jesus "Lord."

The one who said, "I am the first and the last" in Rev. 1:17 is Jesus the MAN whom God, the Father MADE Lord. He is also the one who said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last" in Rev. 1:11-13 and Rev. 22:13,12.

In Rev. 1:8, "the Lord - who is (today) and who was (yesterday) and who is to come (in the future) - the Almighty, who said "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come" (Rev. 4:8) and SAT on the throne (Rev. 4:2).

The one who sat on the throne (Rev. 21:5) again said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in Rev. 6.

The one who sat on the throne is God. The Lamb who stood before Him who sat on the throne is Jesus (Rev. 5:6).

[IncRus]

If yes, did Jesus know that he was God on earth? Please show scripture to support your answer, if any.

On the other hand, if you say that Jesus was NOT God on earth, was he ever God BEFORE he came to earth or is he God NOW that he is sitting at the right hand of God? Please show scripure to support your answer, if any.

We all agree that Jesus was TRUE man on earth, don't we?

I will take the stand that you want to know the truth concerning Christ Jesus because you are a sincere individual with the heart of wanting to be a better Christian. Please read John: Chapter one; Verses 1-18.

Xelsorsior,

John 1:1 does NOT tell me that Jesus WAS the WORD that was WITH God in the beginning and WAS God. NEITHER does John 1:14 tell me that Jesus was the WORD that became flesh or man whom his parents called Jesus. My Bible version of John 1:18 does NOT tell me that Jesus is the "God and ONLY God" who is at the bosom of the Father. Rather, my Bible tells me that it is the "only begotten Son" who is at the bosom of the Father.

Jesus made the statement of how long would He have to tolerate this people(true man) because of their lack of understanding and disbelief. You seem to want everyone to find the answers in Scripture for you. Why not read it for yourself and find these basic answers to the questions that you have asked. If you would read the Scriptures daily and ask for the Holy Spirit of God to guide you in your learning and in your growing of faith then you could teach these basic answers to people yourself instead of asking them.

It should be obvious to you that the reason I posed these questions is to let people come to the knowledge of the TRUTH that Jesus was NOT God on earth. If Jesus KNEW that he was God on earth, he would have been a HYPOCRITICAL LIAR to have said to the Father, "Eternal life means knowing YOU, the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ whom YOU sent (John 17:3).

For your information, Jesus NEVER claimed to be "God on earth." Jesus was NEVER God BEFORE he was born. And there is NO verse that says Jesus is God who sits at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1).

The truth is, the prophet David said that the one sitting at the right hand of God is a MAN (Psalm 80:17).

[apostoli]

Hi JAY-PC,

IncRus thank you for your response, I don’t agree with your opinion concerning the idea that these passages are mistranslated but I do respect your views. I still believe that the Greek in 2 Peter 1:1 states that Jesus is both God and Savior and in 2 Peter 1:1 Lord and Savior. The reason I brought these two passages up is because they are identical in the Greek the only difference is in 1:1 it says God (THEOS) and in 1:11 it says Lord (KURIOS).

2Peter 1:1 …………… του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

2Peter 1:11 …………. του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου


What translation of the Bible do you use? I use the ESV most often.
Just an academic observation:

Many modern translations render 1 Peter 1:1 as "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (eg: NKJV). Other modern versions render it "of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ" (eg: ASV). Then we have the KJV (and others) rendering "of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ." So who is right? The NKJV etc are doctrinal transliterations, the ASV etc are contextual transliteration and the KJV etc are contextual translations (which harmonize with the Latin text). They are all correct, though the modern transliteral Greek makes the verse ambiguous and doesn't provide a true reflection of the meaning that a Greek reader would derive.

The context of the phrase "of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ" is in the preceeding words "through the righteousness". That is to say the subject of the verse is not "God and Savior" but righteousness. Consider what Calvin had to say "[A.Peter] adds, through the righteousness of God, in order that they might know that they did not obtain faith through their own efforts or strength, but through God's favor alone. For these things stand opposed the one to the other, the righteousness of God (in the sense in which it is taken here) and the merit of man. For the efficient cause of faith is called God's righteousness for this reason, because no one is capable of conferring it on himself. So the righteousness that is to be understood, is not that which remains in God, but that which he imparts to men, as in Romans 3:22. Besides, he ascribes this righteousness in common to God and to Christ, because it flows from God, and through Christ it flows down to us."
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles by John Calvin, 1509-1564
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/TOC.htm

2Peter 1:2 also gives us the context for understanding 1:1 "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus, our Lord." Notice the similarity of the words to what Jesus prayed at John 17:3. Also notice 2Peter1:2 is just a rephrasing of 1Peter 1:2. 1Peter 1:3 shows how A.Peter consistently distinguishes between God and Jesus: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (cp: John 20:17; Eph 1:17;3:14-15).

A quick note about KJV translating 2Peter 1:1 & 1:11 differently. As I mentioned above, the reason is not Greek syntax but because of Greek context. Looking at the KJV renderings...

2Peter 1:1 "of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ"
2Peter 1:11 "of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

and now the actual transliteral Greek...
2Peter 1:1 …………… του θεου ημων και = of the God of us and
2Peter 1:11 …………. του κυριου ημων και = of the Lord of us and

To my mind: Looking at the Greek makes me think of 1 Cor 8:6. This becomes more magnified by A.Peter's words at 2 Peter 1:16-18 "For [Jesus Christ] received from God the Father, honor and glory" (cp 1 Peter 3:18,22; Phil 2:9-11)

[JAY-PC]

If you want to translate 2 Peter 1:1 to say "our God and the savior Jesus Christ" that’s fine but be consistent and do that in 2 Peter 1:11 "our Lord and the savior Jesus Christ." They are the same in the Greek.

No one I know translates 2 Peter 1:11 that way.

The reason we have such a wrestling match over 2 Peter 1:1 is because there are people who deny Jesus is called God in the New Testament. My argument is from the Greek and I just read what the text says. I don’t need to come up with all kinds or reasons why it can’t say what it says.

Here is what A.T. Robertson said about 2 Peter 1:1

"Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (tou) with theou and sōtēros requires precisely as with tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Pe_1:11 as in 2Pe_2:20; 2Pe_3:2, 2Pe_3:18. So in 1Pe_1:3 we have ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant."

A.T. Robertson- Word Pictures in the New Testament

[apostoli]

Hi JAY-PC,

If you want to translate 2 Peter 1:1 to say "our God and the savior Jesus Christ" that’s fine but be consistent and do that in 2 Peter 1:11 "our Lord and the savior Jesus Christ." They are the same in the Greek.

No one I know translates 2 Peter 1:11 that way.The following link explains why the KJV translates the text differently to most modern versions. "[Your] point is well taken, and would be correct if the Greek text that underlies the KJV read as [you present]. However, it does not. The Greek text used by the King James translators was Beza's text of 1589 and 1598. There we find an additional emon (our) at 2 Peter 1:1"
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_2pe1_1.html

The reason we have such a wrestling match over 2 Peter 1:1 is because there are people who deny Jesus is called God in the New Testament. My argument is from the Greek and I just read what the text says.A oneness believer I have corresponded with validly pointed out to me "kai" can be translated "and" or "even" or "verily" plus a couple of other conjunctions, so he reads 2 Peter 1:1 as "of our God, verily the Savior Jesus Christ" and verse 2 as "of God verily Jesus our Lord". Which if we ignore Peter's first epistle, is a totally plausable translation.

I have to assume you are a oneness believer. The best I have been able to determine none of the ANFs and later used 2 Peter 1:1 as proving Jesus to be God. Nor would any literate trinitarian use it as proving Jesus to be God. Particularly because the epistle does not confound nor compound the God of us and the Lord of us (eg: 2 Peter 1:16-18) and also because of Peter's first epistle where Jesus Christ is never referred to as Kyrios(=Owner,Master,Lord,King) let alone as impling he is the same person who raised him from the dead ( 1 Pet 1:21) who A.Peter defines specifically as God.

I don’t need to come up with all kinds or reasons why it can’t say what it says.Except it doesn't say what you want it to say.

Unlike 1 Peter, 2 Peter emphasises that Jesus Christ is our Kyrios (see below). If 2 Peter 1:1 was saying Jesus is God, then based on the rest of the epistle he would also have needed to have said in 1:1 that he was also Lord. ie: "our God, Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" which he doesn't. In contrast in 1:2 he specifically parallels the distinction Jesus himself made at John 17:3 and then identifies Jesus as our Kyrios=owner,master,lord,king.

This is particularly pertinent as nowhere in his first epistle does Peter call Jesus Kyrios and the emphasis of the second epistle is Jesus as our Kyrios. Then again his first epistle doesn't concern itself with refuting the false teachers who had infiltrated the congregation (see chapter 2 of the second epistle).

Yes, the little bits you extract from the verses you cite are similar in syntax but it is often the surrounding text, the context that impacts on translations but I won't examine that aspect. Simply note that if you reject any of the following transliterations, you also reject the common translation of John 1:1 which is based on the same rule of Greek grammar.

2Peter 1:1...του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
= of the God of us and [the] Savior Jesus Christ.
2Peter 1:11 & 3:18...του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
= of the Lord of us and [the] Savior Jesus Christ.

2Peter 1:11 & 3:18 have a near parallel in 2:20.
του κυριου και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
= of the Lord and [the] Savior, Jesus Christ.

It might also be worth having a look at 2Peter 1:8,14,16..
του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου
= of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ

ps: All I've intended to do is demonstrate that A.Peter does not identify Jesus as being God. However, A.Peter does (particularly in the first epistle) make a clear distinction between the persons of God and Jesus Christ.

Overall the NT witness is Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God, the Christ our Savior. The ontology of the Son, which is what is usually being discussed on TWeb, is not directly revealed in scripture but is rationalised from scripture.

[John from Ebla]

John from Ebla,

The Bible says, "God CREATED MAN" (Gen. 1:27). Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). If Jesus is a MAN, therefore, it follows that God CREATED Jesus.

God CREATES people and things in various ways. God CREATED Adam by using clay. God CREATED Eve by using one of Adam's ribs. God CREATED Jesus by using His Holy Spirit. God CREATED you and me by using our parents.).


That is your opinion and not biblical. God created Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve were not begotten. Jesus the man was begotten, read Luke and Mathew- Mary was to give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. He was born not created.(Math 1:23)


If God the Father has MADE Jesus the MAN "Lord," then Jesus, the MAN is NOT God the Father. Therefore, Jesus the MAN is NOT God because the God who MADE Jesus "Lord" said, "...beside me, there is NO God" (Isaiah 44:6).)


Well you seem to be lost here. Because God say's there is no other savior, there is no other king, there is no other Lord, there is no other Rock, there is no other shepherd- but according to your theology, there is One God and god, two Lords, two Saviors, Two kings, Two Rocks and Two Shepherd’s of all the others :ahem:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[JAY-PC]

"Yes, the little bits you extract from the verses you cite are similar in syntax"

So are saying that the Greek grammar in 2 Peter 1:1 does call Jesus God and savior at least as far as the NA26/27, UBS4 and the Westcott and Hort text goes?

I quotes AT Robertson who said that in 2 Peter 1:1 God and Savior were talking about the same person namely Jesus Christ.

Here is a quote from “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” by Dana and Mantey pg 147 –

“2 Pt. 2:20 The article here indicates that Jesus is both Lord and savior. So in 2 Pt. 1:1 του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου means that Jesus is our God and savior”.

I don’t care about interpretation or theology at this point, what does the Greek New Testament say and from two scholarly works I have shown that the grammar in 2 Peter 1:1 says plainly that Jesus is both God and savior. I am not arguing what that means just what it says.


p.s. I’m not of the Oneness theology.

[JAY-PC]

This is Just for reference.

2 Peter 1:1 from 24 Translations and 2 Greek Texts.

(SNT) συμεων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
(WHNT1881) σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
(ACV) Simon Peter, a bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received an equally precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(ALT) Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the ones having obtained [or, having been chosen to have] an equally precious faith with us [or, a faith as valuable as ours] by [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(AMP) SIMON PETER, a servant and apostle (special messenger) of Jesus Christ, to those who have received (obtained an equal privilege of) like precious faith with ourselves in and through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(AUV-NT) [This letter is being written by] Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith just as precious as ours, through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
(BBE) Simon Peter, a servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who with us have a part in the same holy faith in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
(BB (1568)) Simon Peter, a seruaunt and an Apostle of Iesus Christe, to them which haue obteined lyke precious faith with vs, thorowe the ryghteousnes of our god and sauiour Iesus Christe:
(CEV) From Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. To everyone who shares with us in the privilege of believing that our God and Savior Jesus Christ will do what is just and fair.
(CENT) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
(Complete Apostles' Bible) Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(Coverdale) Symon Peter a seruaut and an Apostle of Iesus Christ.Vnto the which haue optayned like faith with vs in the righteousnes that commeth of oure God, and Sauioure Iesus Christ.
(Darby) Simon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have received like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
(EMTV) Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(ESV) Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(Geneva) Simon Peter a seruant and an Apostle of Iesus Christ, to you which haue obteined like precious faith with vs by the righteousnesse of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ:
(GSNT) Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the uprightness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have been given a faith as privileged as ours;
(GW) From Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. To those who have obtained a faith that is as valuable as ours, a faith based on the approval that comes from our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
(HCSB) Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
(NET.) From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.
(NIV) 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:
(WEB) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
(WENT) I am Simon Peter. I am a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. I send greetings to you who have believed as we have. Believing is worth just as much to you as it is to us. This is because our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is right and good.
(Wesley's) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us, thro' the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
(WycliffeNT) Simount Petre, seruaunt and apostle of `Jhesu Crist, to hem that han take with vs the euene feith, in the riytwisnesse of oure God and sauyour Jhesu Crist,
(YLT) Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[apostoli]

Hi JAY-PC,

I’m not of the Oneness theology.And believe it or not, I'm arguing from a trinitarian viewpoint.

I don’t care about interpretation or theology at this point, what does the Greek New Testament say and from two scholarly works I have shown that the grammar in 2 Peter 1:1 says plainly that Jesus is both God and savior. I am not arguing what that means just what it says.The argumentation regarding "what the Greek says" is based on a thing called "Granville Sharpe's rule". This rule has a lot of exceptions, notably it doesn't apply when proper names are used (as in this case). Now grammar wise 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is identical to 2 Peter 1:1 and yet most modern translations change the rules they applied in 2 Peter when translating 2 Thessalonians.

2Peter 1:1...του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
= of the God of us and [the] Savior Jesus Christ.

2Thess 1:12...του θεου ημων και κυριου ιησου χριστου
= of the God of us and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice the only difference between the two texts is one uses the word savior in regards to Jesus and the other lord. Below I compare 13 translations of the two verses...

This is Just for reference: 2 Peter 1:1 from 24 Translations and 2 Greek Texts....The rules of translation are quite complex and generally lean towards transliterism when doctrinal passages are encounted. So I'm well aware of the commonality of the translation you cite. However, you'll find that often these same translations are inconsistent with themselves elsewhere...

Here are a few stats based on quick analysis of the 10 translations quoted at BLB + KJV,NEB,NWT:

Only two versions translate 2 Thess 1:12 as "our God and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Young and NLT). However, the NLT footnotes the standard rendering
"our God and the Lord Jesus Christ".
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1133914269-746.html#12

At 2 Peter 1:1, seven translations change their translation rules providing the rendering "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Only ASV,NWT,Young & the NLT have a consistent translation within themselves. The KJV & Webster are based on Beza's Greek so are not strictly comparable to the rest.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1133915754-2545.html#12

[QUOTE=Apostoli]Yes, the little bits you extract from the verses you cite are similar in syntax.

So are saying that the Greek grammar in 2 Peter 1:1 does call Jesus God and savior at least as far as the NA26/27, UBS4 and the Westcott and Hort text goes?If 2 Peter 1:1 calls Jesus "God and Savior" then 2 Thessolonians 1:12 calls Jesus "God and Lord". Or does it!

Context is most important in translation. And as Calvin pointed out (see earlier quote) the context of 2 Peter is that righteousness/grace comes to us by God through Jesus Christ. Which if you have a read of 2 Thessalonians 1:12 you will see is almost identical wording and the exact same message.

I quoted AT Robertson who said that in 2 Peter 1:1 God and Savior were talking about the same person namely Jesus Christ.

Here is a quote from “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” by Dana and Mantey pg 147 – “2 Pt. 2:20 The article here indicates that Jesus is both Lord and savior. So in 2 Pt. 1:1 του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου means that Jesus is our God and savior”.Robertson is just parroting others and making reference to the Granville Sharpe rule. Which is hugely under debate and has many contradictions (ie: when it is not to be applied).

I'll have to have a closer look at Mantey. Somewhere I have an article by Mantey (it is available online) commenting on the translation of Jn 1:1 that provides some insight into translating the type of constructs we are discussing. If you want a copy I'll dig it up and provide the link.

[JAY-PC]

apostoli - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I would like to see the article you mentioned.

Here is some other research: R.C.H. Lenski (1-2 Peter pg 252),W. Robertson Nicoll (The Expositors Greek Testament pg 123), and Kenneth S. Wuest (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament vol. III pg 28 “by paths” and pg 31-33 “treasures”). These all comment on this passage and take the position that Jesus is called God and Savior.

You bring up a great argument. :thumb:
2 Thessalonians 1:12 Seems to be the same as 2 Peter 1:1 and some translations do translate it “God and Lord Jesus Christ” but there seems to be an issue here because as you note the Granville Sharpe rule doesn’t apply to proper names and KURIOS as well as THEOS are used sometimes as proper names without the article. I think it should be “God and Lord Jesus Christ” but because of the issue concerning the use of KURIOS and THEOS as proper names I would except either “God and Lord Jesus Christ” or “God and the Lord Jeus Christ.”


It seems as if we are not going to agree on this and that’s ok. I really enjoy discussing theology and translation with others especially those who have a different view than what I hold.

[mickiel]

John from Ebla,

The Bible says, "God CREATED MAN" (Gen. 1:27). Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). If Jesus is a MAN, therefore, it follows that God CREATED Jesus.

God CREATES people and things in various ways. God CREATED Adam by using clay. God CREATED Eve by using one of Adam's ribs. God CREATED Jesus by using His Holy Spirit. God CREATED you and me by using our parents.


. 5:6).





Jesus is the firstBORN of all creations. God birthed Jesus, he begot Jesus. The bible clearly calls him the only begotten son of God, clearly referencing a birth. Jesus is in Gods image because he perhaps looks exactly like him, which is not an odd thing for offspring, even humans can have that experience.

[John from Ebla]

Jesus is the firstBORN of all creations. God birthed Jesus, he begot Jesus. The bible clearly calls him the only begotten son of God, clearly referencing a birth. Jesus is in Gods image because he perhaps looks exactly like him, which is not an odd thing for offspring, even humans can have that experience.

But we Human speak of Begotten in the sense that we know- born. Now how do you appy a woman giving birth, begets, to God giving birth to his son in eternty?

Yes l agree he was born Human, but born deos not mean created

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[apostoli]

Hi JAY-PC,

It seems as if we are not going to agree on this and that’s ok. I really enjoy discussing theology and translation with others especially those who have a different view than what I hold.It has been a long time since I've seriously looked into this aspect of 2 Peter 1:1, so I appreciate your inquiry as it gets me off my butt and makes me investigate more thoroughly.

My aspect: texts like 2 Peter 1:1 are neutral. Then again my interest is what was Peter trying to convey at a pastoral level. And in this regard my focus is not on "God and Savior" in a literary context, but as Calvin and presumeably A.Peter suggests: the rightouesness of our God, the Father by whom all things are and the righteousness of our savior Jesus Christ, through whom all things are. A subtlety in trinitarian christology that many miss.

I appreciate discussing this topic with you. For me it has been more valueable than you might fathom. Making me investigate many aspects I have either taken for granted or long forgotten.

Time is a little short just now, so I'll have to reply more fully to your post a little later.

All the best...

[apostoli]

Hi Jay-PC,

ps to my last post (a fuller reply).

Here is some other research: R.C.H. Lenski (1-2 Peter pg 252),W. Robertson Nicoll (The Expositors Greek Testament pg 123), and Kenneth S. Wuest (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament vol. III pg 28 “by paths” and pg 31-33 “treasures”). These all comment on this passage and take the position that Jesus is called God and Savior.

You bring up a great argument. 2 Thessalonians 1:12 Seems to be the same as 2 Peter 1:1 and some translations do translate it “God and Lord Jesus Christ” but there seems to be an issue here because as you note the Granville Sharpe rule [GSR] doesn’t apply to proper names and KURIOS as well as THEOS are used sometimes as proper names without the article. I think it should be “God and Lord Jesus Christ” but because of the issue concerning the use of KURIOS and THEOS as proper names I would except either “God and Lord Jesus Christ” or “God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”Thanks for the cites. If I thought it would add value to our conversation I would dig up the cites with a different opinion.

The 2 Thess 1:12 is a stock argument in the GSR debate. And the counter is always but "Lord Jesus Christ" is a common appellation in the scriptures and would have been/is understood as a proper name therefore the GSR doesn't apply at 2 Thessolonians 1:12 but the phrase "Savior Jesus Christ" is unique to 2 Peter and so the GSR does apply. My retort is simply that in A.Peter's day and today, ask a believer who our savior is and the response would be "Jesus Christ", so by association I submit that A.Peter is using a common appellation at 2 Peter 1:1 and therefore the GSR doesn't apply. As you can see the application of the GSR in these verses is subjective and so the debate isn't really based on grammar but dogma.

As a trinitarian, why do I reject the translation "God and Savior"? To my mind the grammar is inconclusive. Also, my focus is on the phrase "through the righteousness" which qualifies the next clause of 2 Peter 1:1. To understand this righteousness as referring exclusively to Jesus contradicts not only A.Peter's overall message (see below) but also the entire testimony of A.Paul (eg: Phil 1:11;3:9; Titus 1:2-4 (refer to your concordance and examine the NT usage of the words righteousness and savior)).

It seems as if we are not going to agree on this and that’s ok. I really enjoy discussing theology and translation with others especially those who have a different view than what I hold.So lets ignore the grammar for a moment and have a bit of a bible study (texts from RSV)....

A.Peter addressed his letter "To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ."

In his first epistle A.Peter unambiguously defines this faith "Through [Christ] you have confidence in God who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God" (1 Pe 1:21 cp 2 Pe 1:17).

Then at 2 Peter 1:2 we read "May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the "knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord." . The Greek word translated knowledge is epignosis which more correctly means "full and accurate knowledge". So it is in this spirit that I proceed...

To my mind: to understand 2 Peter 1:1 as reading "the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" conflicts with verse 2 where it is the knowledge of both "God and of Jesus our Lord" through which "grace and peace be multiplied". Why do I say conflict? The entire NT testimony is that Jesus remained obedient to his Father even unto death and God raised Jesus from the dead, and through belief and faith in these facts we too have the promise of eternal life. The Christian faith is not based on Jesus dying on the cross but on the fact that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself for us and that God, his Father, raised him from the dead and will raise us also (eg: 1 Cor 15:12-19; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 1:9). This is the faith that A.Peter is talking about. The faith in the righteousness of 1. God and 2. the Savior Jesus Christ.

To read 2 Peter 1:1 as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" also has the problem of association. It implies that "our God" is a different God to the one Jesus and the apostles believed in. Which is in conflict with the NT (eg: Eph 1:17; John 20:17; Rom 20:27; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6)

Another problem of reading 2 Peter 1:1 as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ": it contradicts 1 Peter 3:15 where A.Peter says “reverence Christ as Lord” (which he does throughout 2 Peter) and conflicts with A.Peter's concluding remarks in 1 Peter 5:10-11 "the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ will himself restore, establish and strengthen you. To him be the dominion for ever and ever".

Another problem of reading 2 Peter 1:1 as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ": It is inconsistent with the rest of the epistle. In verse 2 we have the phrase "through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" after that Jesus is always referred to as either “the Lord" or "our Lord"...

1:8 "in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ"
1:11 " into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
2:20 "through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ"
3:2 “of the Lord and Savior”
3:18 "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Also, consider 2 Peter 1:16-21; 2:4; 3:5; 3:12. Who is the God being spoken about? I promise you it isn't Jesus!

A more significant problem of reading 2 Peter 1:1 as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ": it conflicts with the whole of Peter’s first epistle...

3:15 “reverence Christ as Lord” (see below)

1.2 “chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ”
1.3 “Blessed be the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
1:21 “Through him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God”
3:18 “For Christ also died…that he might bring us to God”
4:11 “in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.”
5:10 “the God of all grace, who has called you to eternal glory in Christ”

Note: 1 Peter 3:15 “reverence Christ as Lord” (RSV) versus "sanctify the Lord God" (KJV)
I just checked 36 versions; 30 agree with RSV & 6 agree with the KJV (Geneva, Tyndale, KJV, NKJV, 21KJV, Young (KJV revision))
http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp

Recommend you read Tregelles comments. You'll find them of great interest especially as Peter is citing Isa. 8:12,13 but with a mod to the LXX. That aside the reason for the different translations: "the reading criston is supported by most [mss]...the reading qeon [has no mss support] older than G and J (at Moscow) of the ninth century, and it is found in no version older than the Arabic in the Polyglot. Thus the reading criston may be relied on confidently."
Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament; with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles (London, 1854), pages 226-236.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/dogma.html

I would like to see the article you mentioned.Here it is, plus a couple of others you might find useful sometime in the future.
Dr. Mantey's Letter to WTS
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html
John 1:1 Meaning and Translation by James White
http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
Granville Sharp's Rule
http://www.theopedia.com/Granville_Sharp's_Rule

All the best...

[IncRus]

John from Ebla,

The Bible says, "God CREATED MAN" (Gen. 1:27). Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). If Jesus is a MAN, therefore, it follows that God CREATED Jesus.

God CREATES people and things in various ways. God CREATED Adam by using clay. God CREATED Eve by using one of Adam's ribs. God CREATED Jesus by using His Holy Spirit. God CREATED you and me by using our parents.).

That is your opinion and not biblical. God created Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve were not begotten. Jesus the man was begotten, read Luke and Mathew- Mary was to give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. He was born not created.(Math 1:23)

John from Ebla, you are blinded by your fanaticism to the UNBIBLICAL doctrine that Jesus is God. The Bible CLEARLY tells us that God CREATED man (Gen. 1:27). Jesus SAYS he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). Therefore, God CREATED Jesus, the MAN! It does NOT matter that the Bible says he is the only BEGOTTEN son of God.

BTW, the name Immanuel which means "God with us" is the end result of Jesus' mission of salvation. Please read Matt. 1:21-22 first before going to verse 23 and try to understand what these verses are saying.

]If God the Father has MADE Jesus the MAN "Lord," then Jesus, the MAN is NOT God the Father. Therefore, Jesus the MAN is NOT God because the God who MADE Jesus "Lord" said, "...beside me, there is NO God" (Isaiah 44:6).)

Well you seem to be lost here. Because God say's there is no other savior, there is no other king, there is no other Lord, there is no other Rock, there is no other shepherd- but according to your theology, there is One God and god, two Lords, two Saviors, Two kings, Two Rocks and Two Shepherd’s of all the others

While it is true that in the Old Testament, God said he is the ONLY savior, the New Testament, which Christians also believe to be the WORD of God, tells us that God SENT Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17). God MADE Jesus "Prince and SAVIOR to give repentance to Israel, the FORGIVENESS of sins" (Acts 5:31).

Jesus acknowledged that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[John from Ebla]

John from Ebla, you are blinded by your fanaticism to the UNBIBLICAL doctrine that Jesus is God. The Bible CLEARLY tells us that God CREATED man (Gen. 1:27). Jesus SAYS he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). Therefore, God CREATED Jesus, the MAN! It does NOT matter that the Bible says he is the only BEGOTTEN son of God.
What are you blinded by? I never said Jesus was not a man, but you deny that the spirit of Jesus is the fullness of God (2 Cor 5:19) (Col 1:19)- and no we are not the Fullness of God.


BTW, the name Immanuel which means "God with us" is the end result of Jesus' mission of salvation. Please read Matt. 1:21-22 first before going to verse 23 and try to understand what these verses are saying.).

You are adding your own meaning to what the bible say's, " God with us" does not mean soemone else with us and Paul agrees (2 Cor 5:19)

Yes, l read Matt. 1:21-22 and l don't dissagree, the word became Flesh John 1:1-3,10,14, born human of the ribe of Judah, but you deny that the spirit of Christ is God (2 Cor 5:19) and it was his spirit that spoke to the prophets in the O/T. 1 Peter1:11


While it is true that in the Old Testament, God said he is the ONLY savior, the New Testament, which Christians also believe to be the WORD of God, tells us that God SENT Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17). God MADE Jesus "Prince and SAVIOR to give repentance to Israel, the FORGIVENESS of sins" (Acts 5:31).)

Of course it's true there is only one saviour- so your theology about another is not scriptual.


Jesus acknowledged that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

I never said he is not- but you deny Jesus (his spirit) is the "I am" of the O/T (John 8:58) (Heb 9:14)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[IncRus]

John from Ebla, you are blinded by your fanaticism to the UNBIBLICAL doctrine that Jesus is God. The Bible CLEARLY tells us that God CREATED man (Gen. 1:27). Jesus SAYS he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV). Therefore, God CREATED Jesus, the MAN! It does NOT matter that the Bible says he is the only BEGOTTEN son of God.

What are you blinded by? I never said Jesus was not a man, but you deny that the spirit of Jesus is the fullness of God (2 Cor 5:19) (Col 1:19)- and no we are not the Fullness of God.

You said that Jesus is "born but NOT created." As Gen. 1:27 shows, that's FALSE!

The Bible clearly says that God CREATED man. Since you admit that Jesus is a MAN, then why do you DENY that he is CREATED? BTW, the "spirit of Jesus" is NOT "the fullness of God." Your interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:19 and Col. 1:19 is FALSE. 2 Cor. 5:19 means "the Spirit of God DWELLS in Jesus" and Col. 1:19 means "the RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS of God (which is the FULLNESS of God) dwells in Jesus.

BTW, the name Immanuel which means "God with us" is the end result of Jesus' mission of salvation. Please read Matt. 1:21-22 first before going to verse 23 and try to understand what these verses are saying.).

You are adding your own meaning to what the bible say's, " God with us" does not mean soemone else with us and Paul agrees (2 Cor 5:19)

Yes, l read Matt. 1:21-22 and l don't dissagree, the word became Flesh John 1:1-3,10,14, born human of the ribe of Judah, but you deny that the spirit of Christ is God (2 Cor 5:19) and it was his spirit that spoke to the prophets in the O/T. 1 Peter1:11

Obviously, you CAN'T comprehend Matthew 1:21-23.

While it is true that in the Old Testament, God said he is the ONLY savior, the New Testament, which Christians also believe to be the WORD of God, tells us that God SENT Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17). God MADE Jesus "Prince and SAVIOR to give repentance to Israel, the FORGIVENESS of sins" (Acts 5:31).)

Of course it's true there is only one saviour- so your theology about another is not scriptual.

Please open your eyes. John 3:17 says, "God SENT His son Jesus." God, who says He is the ONLY savior SENT His Son Jesus to SAVE the world. God and Jesus are NOT one and the same.

Jesus acknowledged that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

I never said he is not- but you deny Jesus (his spirit) is the "I am" of the O/T (John 8:58) (Heb 9:14)

Again, your interpretation of John 8:58 and Heb. 9:14 is FALSE. Why CAN'T you understand what Jesus is saying in John 8:40 and John 17:3?

The Father whom Jesus identified as "the ONLY true God" is the SAME Father in the OT who was recognized as "the Lord God" by the prophets (Isaiah 44:6; 45:21; 63:16; Mal. 2:10).

[John from Ebla]

You said that Jesus is "born but NOT created." As Gen. 1:27 shows, that's FALSE!)

I was born, begotten by my mother and so were you, by your mother and so was Jesus, by Mary- Adam was created he was not born. Look up the dictionary and see that created and born are not the same thing. One is to cause to exists, (create) the other is to come into what already exist via birth.

A six year old can understand this so l am lost as to why you don't


the "spirit of Jesus" is NOT "the fullness of God." Your interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:19 and Col. 1:19 is FALSE. 2 Cor. 5:19 means "the Spirit of God DWELLS in Jesus" and Col. 1:19 means "the RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS of God (which is the FULLNESS of God) dwells in Jesus.).

Nowhere in the bible does it say Col. 1:19 means "the RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS of God.
Matt 1:23 say's 'God with us" and 2 Cor. 5:19 agrees God was in the body of Christ Christ




Please open your eyes. John 3:17 says, "God SENT His son Jesus." God, who says He is the ONLY savior SENT His Son Jesus to SAVE the world. God and Jesus are NOT one and the same.!)

My eyes are open. Now please explain how the Son is sent into the world if he never existed. The Spirit of the son existed, just as Peter said in 1 Peter1:11 "the Spirit of Christ spoke to the prophets" This spirit was in Jesus. The body of Jesus was not sent into the world the spirit was, and became flesh John 1:1-3,10,14



Again, your interpretation of John 8:58 and Heb. 9:14 is FALSE.

I did not give an interpretation- Heb. 9:14 say's eternal spirit and in John 8:58 Jesus said he is the 'l am"


Why CAN'T you understand what Jesus is saying in John 8:40 and John 17:3?

l do understand in John 8:40 Jesus is saying that what they are doing is not what Abraham did- Abraham saw the memra of God and he called him God

l just don't want to accept your teaching of denying that God sent the spirit of his son into the world. John 3:17

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[IncRus]

You said that Jesus is "born but NOT created." As Gen. 1:27 shows, that's FALSE!)

I was born, begotten by my mother and so were you, by your mother and so was Jesus, by Mary- Adam was created he was not born. Look up the dictionary and see that created and born are not the same thing. One is to cause to exists, (create) the other is to come into what already exist via birth.

A six year old can understand this so l am lost as to why you don't

God CAUSED Jesus to EXIST (created) when Mary CONCEIVED him in her womb through the Holy Spirit. Thus, God CREATED Jesus in Mary's womb BEFORE he was born.

the "spirit of Jesus" is NOT "the fullness of God." Your interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:19 and Col. 1:19 is FALSE. 2 Cor. 5:19 means "the Spirit of God DWELLS in Jesus" and Col. 1:19 means "the RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS of God (which is the FULLNESS of God) dwells in Jesus."

Nowhere in the bible does it say Col. 1:19 means "the RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS of God.

Matt 1:23 say's 'God with us" and 2 Cor. 5:19 agrees God was in the body of Christ Christ

Your understanding of Matt. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 5:19 that "God was in the body of Christ" is FALSE. In John 17:1, Jesus "lifted up his eyes to heaven and prayed to God." In Col. 3:1, aposle Paul writes that Jesus is in heaven "sitting at the right hand of God."

Please open your eyes. John 3:17 says, "God SENT His son Jesus." God, who says He is the ONLY savior SENT His Son Jesus to SAVE the world. God and Jesus are NOT one and the same.!)

My eyes are open. Now please explain how the Son is sent into the world if he never existed. The Spirit of the son existed, just as Peter said in 1 Peter1:11 "the Spirit of Christ spoke to the prophets" This spirit was in Jesus. The body of Jesus was not sent into the world the spirit was, and became flesh John 1:1-3,10,14

The word "sent" is a metaphor that describes one who is the FULFILLMENT of God's prophecies written in the Bible. For example, John is said to be "a man SENT from God" (John 1:6) because he is the FULFILLMENT of a prophecy written in Isaiah 40:3, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Make straight the way of the Lord" (John 1:22-23).

Jesus is said to have been SENT by God because he is the FULFILLMENT of the prophecy written in Isaiah 61:1,2 concerning his mission (Luke 4:21, 17-20).

Again, your interpretation of John 8:58 and Heb. 9:14 is FALSE.

I did not give an interpretation- Heb. 9:14 say's eternal spirit and in John 8:58 Jesus said he is the 'l am"

Heb. 9:14 tells us that Christ offered himself TO God. John 8:58 does NOT tell us that "I am" means Jesus is saying he is God. Jesus is telling the Jews that although he was NOT yet fifty and had not seen Abraham, he KNEW that Abraham rejoiced to SEE (understand and believe) "HIS day" because he is the Messsiah who will bring FULFILLMENT to God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

Why CAN'T you understand what Jesus is saying in John 8:40 and John 17:3?

l do understand in John 8:40 Jesus is saying that what they are doing is not what Abraham did- Abraham saw the memra of God and he called him God

John 8:40 is relevant to this thread because Jesus tells us the TRUTH that he is a MAN. Your statement, "Abraham saw the memra of God and he called him God" has NO Biblical basis.

l just don't want to accept your teaching of denying that God sent the spirit of his son into the world. John 3:17

What you are saying is FALSE. John 3:17 does NOT say, "God sent (the spirit of) his son into the world." That's a LIE!

[John from Ebla]

John 8:40 is relevant to this thread because Jesus tells us the TRUTH that he is a MAN. Your statement, "Abraham saw the memra of God and he called him God" has NO Biblical basis.!

Read the O/T



What you are saying is FALSE. John 3:17 does NOT say, "God sent (the spirit of) his son into the world." That's a LIE!


How many names have you called me. Have you read John 3:13......One who has come down from heaven....Then John 6:38 "For l have come down from heaven....." The Jews undertood just that, see John 6:42....... How can he say he came down form Heaven?

John 6:46.......Not that anyone has seen Him- except He who was with the father........

Prov 30:4 ......What is his name and what is his son's name, if you know.

Kind regards
John From Ebla