Originally posted by NemesioNow, now, you know I love ya and I'm sure you love me as well since we both claim to be rooted in God's love and all. 😉
I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that he considers our agreement as vindication of his position...
Either that, or I'm ridiculing and belittling him or something.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know how to raise this objection without being accused of bullying, but...
Specifically you and ahonesey are saying that just because one is called the Son of God or the Messiah in no way means that one is divine.
I never said: Because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, therefore He is not divine.
I said: Because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah doesn't necessarily mean He is divine.
I hope you take this correction to your misinterpretation of my post in good stride and don't feel
belittled or ridiculed because of this. I just don't like being misrepresented.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyI think it is very highly probable that Jesus followers thought that He was the Messiah. I think the
However, when Christ asks his disciples who they think he is, Peter responds by saying that you are the Messiah. Christ then forbids him to tell anyone. Why? What is so special about the role of Messiah? Can you contradict the account in Mark I provided that shows Christ being convicted of blasphemy? Does he offer a defense? If not, why not? If so, wha ...[text shortened]... erse 8. Do you believe that Jesus was not really Jesus in this account as ahonesey believes?
NT canon texts support this claim.
Nemesio
P.S., I'm not elaborating because I thought the point of this thread was to explore the divinity of
Jesus, not the Messiahship of Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by whodeyIf you're being sarcastic, then I would consider this belittling, because, as I've said, I strive to approach
Now, now, you know I love ya and I'm sure you love me as well since we both claim to be rooted in God's love and all. 😉
everything prayerfully and with agape in my heart. If you were being serious, then I would
admonish you not to make light of the expectation to love your fellow man prayerfully.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyGah.
I am ascertaining who the Biblical Messiah is based upon the scriptures given to us. Of coarse if you do not believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God all of this is a bit meaningless and trivial for you no doubt.
No, you were trying to ascertain whether or not Jesus was 'divine', remember? Of course, you laid absolutely no groundwork as to what you mean by 'divine'. I presume the search will cover scripture, yes, but my question was just one of heightened clarification concerning just what you are looking for. Maybe I'm just not familiar with the terminology here, but your answer doesn't seem to address my question.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by whodeyI pledge my allegience and heart to what God has commanded, His Son.
So you plege your allegeince and heart to someone other than God? You call Jesus your Lord instead of the Lord of Hosts? If Chrsit is not God is this not then idolatrous?
Also, do you believe that Isaiah 9:6 is referring to the Messiah? If so, then how can God be born? If not then who is it referring to and what to do with the whole, "God will be born" dogma?
Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”
In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”
2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8).
3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God&rdquo😉 with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler&rdquo😉. If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.
The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”
4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.
Buzzard, pp. 45 and 51;
Farley, pp. 47-49;
Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106;
Snedeker, pp. 397-403.
This document was taken from Appendix A of One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith (copyright 2003) by Christian Educational Services, a division of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International.
You may use any or all of this document as long as proper credit is given to the One God & One Lord book and www.BiblicalUnitarian.com.
checkbaiter,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, God has an eternal purpose. John 1:1, however says that "... and the Word was God".
"He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:2) Since God always was, "the beginning" is not the beginning of Genesis 1:1. In John's Gospel "the beginning" must be eternity without a beginning. As long as God is the Word is.
Because of limitation of human language John calls eternity past - "the beginning".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unitarians do not believe that the Word which is "He" is God Himself. But that is what John 1:1 says. And verse 14 says that the Word Who was God and through Whom all things came into being, became flesh and tabernacled among us.
You spoke of God's plan and purpose. Well according to Ephesians God's eternal purpose included choosing some human beings "in Him" (Christ) before the foundation of the world. That would mean before the creation of the universe:
"Even as He (the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:1)) chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." (See Ephesians 1:3-5).
Beginning from eternity God chose some people. This was a selection made in the sphere and realm of Christ. And this action was done "before the foundation of the world". Before the foundation of the world would also be before the incarnation of the Word to be flesh in John 1:14.
So in eternity past before the Word became flesh, God selected, God chose some people in the sphere and realm of Christ.
Once again, you need to pay special attention to the phrase - "Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." (Eph.1:3). And you need to realize that outside of Christ we are not God's choice.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s plan or purpose.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If we simply let the Bible speak for itself as to Who the Word was it is clear - " ... and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God".
What is against our limited natural mind is that this Person - the Word is both with God and is God. But this truth is not so that man may have a doctrine called the Trinity. This truth is for Triune God imparting His life into man for our subjective experience.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't see you taking it straightforwardly at all.
" ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God"
The Word is God. You read the words but you mentally substitute " and the Word was [NOT] God". And then you tell me that you are taking it straightforwardly. No you are not. You are twisting the verse.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have no difficulty of realizing that the incarnation of the Word to be a man is a part of the eternal purpose of God. But you wrongly use this concept to somehow twist away the truth that "He" ... the Word ... was God. All things came into being through Him. And He, the Word Who was God, became flesh.
You are trying to deny one truth by emphasizing another. Incarnation being in the plan of God does not mean that the Word ... "He" ... was not God.
checkbaiter,
+++++++++++++++++
Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyone, trinitatrian or not, who denies that the Son given shall be called the Eternal Father is denying the Bible. I don't care what creed you site.
There is only ONE Eternal Father in the Bible. That is Jehovah God.
I fully realize Jesus prays to the Father, obeys the Father, speaks the words of the Father, petitions the Father, and asks the Father to take the cup from Him if it is the Father's will to do so.
But the Son given will be called Eternal Father. So this must mean that He is what He is called. The Son is the Father. And trinitarians, trithiests, unitarian, or anyone else has no right to twist away the straight forward meaning of Isaiah 9:6.
Some try to say that the Father there is some OTHER Father beside the Father of the Trinity. Those who do this end up with a heresy of having TWO divine Fathers in the Bible.
Some say that this Father is the Father of creation not the Father of the Trinity. Others say that this Father is the Father of Israel not the Father of the Trinity. Others say this Father is of the millennial kingdom and not the Father of the Triune God.
All these excuses are twistings. If our minds cannot grasp how the Son could be the Father then we need more experience not more theology.
The child is born "unto us". And the Son is given "unto us". That means He is for our EXPERIENCE and ENJOYMENT. If He were easy to understand then He would not be called "Peleh" - "Wonderful". Whatever is wonderful is not easy to comprehend. This Wonderful One is unto us for our experience.
But be certain that "Eternal Father" is none other than the Father of the Father - Son - and Holy Spirit Trinity. And He is the God of the OT too:
"But now, Jehovah, You are our Father ..." (Isaiah 64:8)
"For You are our Father, ... You, Jehovah, are our Father; Our Redeemer from of old is Your name" (See Isaiah 63:16)
Not only so, but Jehovah is the Mighty God. So the child born unto us is Jehovah the one and only Mighty God:
" .. the great the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name" (Jeremiah 32:18 1901 ASV)
"The Mighty One, God Jehovah, speaks ..." (Psalm 50:1)
The child born is Jehovah the Mighty God. So the Word Who was with God and WAS GOD ... became flesh.
checkbaiter,
++++++++++++++++++++++++
the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jesus teaches that "Me" meaning Himself is the Father in John chapter 14 is complete agreement with Isaiah 9:6:
"Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me Philip?" (See John 14:9)
Philip asks Jesus to show them this Father Whom He has been teaching about for three years. Jesus replies "Have I been so long a time with you, AND YOU HAVE NOT KNOWN ... ME ... Philip?".
For Philip to know Jesus the "Me" is for Philip to know the Father. Jesus could have gone one to say:
"Philip, didn't you read Isaiah 9:6? Didn't you understand there that the Son given to you is called the Eternal Father. I have been with you three years now Philip. And you still don't know Me, the Father ?"
Now those are my fictitious words. But what does John record Jesus as saying?
"Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?"
Jesus asks Philip how he could even ask such a request. His speaking is the Father's working. He and the Father are one. He lives in the Father and the Father lives in Him. He expresses the Father to the uttermost and is called Eternal Father though He is the Son given.
Then Jesus says that is our reasoning stumbles us that He is in the Father and the Father in Him, then we should believe because of thet works that He does:
"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves."
The bottom line is that John 14:10 shows that Jesus Himself taught the disciples that He is the Eternal Father incarnated.
Originally posted by whodeyNo, I don't know this, you may give me more information about it.
Ok then, some speculate that the abomination of Desolation spoken of in Daniel is in reference to the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount. Had you ever heard that theory?
Talking about the false prophet, we as Muslims also believe in a the false prophet. He will come at the end of days, and he will preach for himself as he is the true Massiah, and he will have mericals as well.
When Jesus return he will fight this false Massiah and he will be killed at that time.
This false Masssiah is described in the Prophets haddith, and every thing he will do.
Originally posted by ahosyneyDo you know that the Qu'ran says the prophet Isa (Jesus) was born of a virgin and performed many miracles? And that it also says that Jesus was a messenger and a prophet of God? And that the Qur'an gives him the unique title of the Messiah?
No, I don't know this, you may give me more information about it.
Talking about the false prophet, we as Muslims also believe in a the false prophet. He will come at the end of days, and he will preach for himself as he is the true Massiah, and he will have mericals as well.
When Jesus return he will fight this false Massiah and he will be killed at ...[text shortened]... time.
This false Masssiah is described in the Prophets haddith, and every thing he will do.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaOf course I know, did I say something different any where?
Do you know that the Qu'ran says the prophet Isa (Jesus) was born of a virgin and performed many miracles? And that it also says that Jesus was a messenger and a prophet of God? And that the Qur'an gives him the unique title of the Messiah?
So what ?
There is only one God. Yeshua is the original Hebrew proper name for Jesus of Nazareth. Yeshua was the name His mother called Him when she called Him for supper. In Hebrew Yeshua means "Salvation." Isaiah 62:11 says in part “…Surely your salvation (Yeshua = Jesus) is coming. Behold His reward is with Him…” Salvation is a person.
When the angel spoke to Joseph (Mary’s husband), and said “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus…” the angel was speaking Hebrew. The angel said His name would be called “Yeshua” or “Salvation.” Joseph understood what the angel was saying…the baby would be the person Isaiah was talking about.
God is a spirit (which we can’t normally see) and man is flesh, so for us to see God, He had to put on flesh. Since nobody could be found that was good enough to pay for sin, God, in effect, said, “I’ll put on flesh, and pay for it myself.”
When Thomas looked at Jesus and said, “My Lord and my God.” he knew who he was looking at: his God who had come in the flesh
Originally posted by ahosyneyJerry Landay in his book, "The Dome of the Rock" (Newsweek, New York, NY, 1972) p. 18, records that when Khalifah Omar entered Jerusalem in 639 AD, he was met by Sophronius, Bishop of the Jerusalem Church, who showed him around the city. Seeing the temple mount (then in rubble), Omar declared that he was going to build a memorial to Muhammad on the original site of the temple of God. Sophronius exlaimed in horror, "Verily, this is the Abomination of Desolation as spoken of by Daniel the prophet," and it now stands in the holy place. Though Sophronius was a very old man, Khalifah Omar put him in prison and to forced labor, the severities of which killed him. The Dome of the Rock being the Abomination of Desolation is not a new theory. It's a truth that's been with the church for over 1300 years, but somehow we have managed to forget the prophetic words of Sophronius, Bishop of the Jerusalem church.
No, I don't know this, you may give me more information about it.
Talking about the false prophet, we as Muslims also believe in a the false prophet. He will come at the end of days, and he will preach for himself as he is the true Massiah, and he will have mericals as well.
When Jesus return he will fight this false Massiah and he will be killed at ...[text shortened]... time.
This false Masssiah is described in the Prophets haddith, and every thing he will do.