while it's not the point of verse, it is the premise. god is not a man. "god incarnate" is an attempt at apology for worshipping a mortal being as god. further, god is apparently already incarnate, if he so chooses.
Right, God can do as He pleases because He's God. And no, God is not a man, however, to display His mercy, why could not take the form of a man, born lowly in a manger? What philosophical barrier does that pose for you? To me, that speaks all the more highly of His majesty, His infinite knowledge, and His unending mercy.
quote:
:Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
First of all, I don't ascribe to an anthropomorphic God that has hands or even a face. I think this indicating that His whole glory is not for mortal man to know. Aside from which, no one did know who Jesus was. And if you say that Jesus is not the Messiah, it ultimately is inconsequential and this is why:
"Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high (by God) . Who has believed our report? (Who believes Christians?)
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? (Who amongst us has humbled himself, in order to understand who God is?)
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. (Jesus grew up like a regular little boy).
He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. (There was nothing in Jesus, that by sight, we might understand who He is).
He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Jesus was rejected, smitten, scorned, beaten, and battered, because we did not care to listen to Him).
Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His STRIPES, we are healed. (Jesus bore our sorrow and took it upon Himself and was crucified that we might live)!
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is silent before it’s shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. (Jesus before Pontious Pilate was silent as the charges were brought against Him).
He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? (Who among you will take up His Name, even at the risk of death?)
For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked, but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. (He was crucified like a criminal and yet, never committed one crime, either against God or against community.)
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. (For the remission of our sins, God has given His only begotten Son, in our stead.)
When you make His soul as an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. (The Lord will compel Him to rise from the dead for His obedience, even unto to death.)
By His knowledge, My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I shall divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and HE BORE THE SIN OF MANY, and made intercession for the transgressors.” -Isaiah 52:12 and 53:13
What mere man can do only what God can do, which is taking away sin? No one can do this but God. So, even if you disagree that Jesus is the messiah, surely you would incline to agree that this passage is messianic and that it speaks of Moshiac as being far above mortal man.
“When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish His kingdom forever. I will be His FATHER and He will be My SON. When He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But My love will never be taken away from Him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me; your throne will be established forever.” -2nd Samuel 7:12-13
Here we see that the Messiah has a father/son bond that cannot be broken. You may have noticed that it says, ”when He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.’ Jesus was completely sinless. He never did wrong, but for our sake, He became sin. Sin must be atoned for by blood. Halacha (Jewish Law) makes this very clear. God cannot overlook sin for the sake of justice. However, because of His mercy, God Himself became the propitiation of sin as the only acceptable sacrifice. Because Jesus did this, it is as if Father momentarily looked away from the Son. Therefore, we know from the gospels that Jesus was inflicted with some of the most horrific beatings ever endured by anyone. Romans were champions at torture. They employed some of the most painful tactics ever devised by man’s reprehensible mind. The carnage against Him was so awful that Isaiah prophesied, that,
“His body would be marred more than any other man.” His beating was so profound that He literally was a lump of flesh and blood. On the cross He would prophetically cry out,
“Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani?” which in Aramaic, means,
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?”
When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son, God did not allow him to complete the task, because He had, no intention of having Abraham complete this. God stopped Abraham and told him that He would provide for Himself an acceptable sacrifice. This ancient story was a shadow of what God was going to do for mankind out of His abundant love in the distant future. Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice, provided by God, Himself. And all of it was done for you, and me.
Therefore, once again, the Messiah is God, and God the Messiah.
similar, if jesus is god incarnate, why does he plead with god?
To teach submission and reverence to God. And if you assert that this would be impractical, then so is having this elaborate creation where the only thing that truly matters is the heavenly realm. Why not forgo all of this life on earth? What I mean is, His ways are higher than our ways.
:Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
What then do you think Jesus thought of Himself as? He claimed Himself to be the Son of God. What do you personally believe?
"MY father" and "not as I will, but as YOU will." it makes very, very little sense if there's no disconnect between jesus and god. if jesus IS god, who is he pleading with? why beg with yourself? why the difference between "i" and "you?"
These are the fundamental questions that everyone asks concerning the Trinity. My take on it is, the Scriptures are for us, not God. Why does God need to bring about a Messiah at all when He could it Himself? Why does He allow evil to exist if He could simply speak it out of existence? This illustration, I believe, represents how we should relate to God; always in prayer, always humble, and always receptive to His will.
i can't believe i haven't heard it called that before. mostly because there are very few groups of people that speak hebrew AND think there is a "new covenant."
I got it from the CJB - The Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David Stern. I've seen it on the web. I'm sure a quick Google search will provide those answers. My guess as to why you've never heard it before is because so many Jews don't accept Yeshua as the Moshiac. Of those that do, they understand the new covenant spoken about in Yirmeyahu.
but anyways. that's very debatable. we've had threads before about if prophecies fit, and so far the best the fundamentalists have been able to shows is that MAYBE god likes to fulfill things twice, and the second time is gloriously out of context.
I believe that. Think of it in scriptural context. Rarely do we simply base scripture for face value, but look at the conglomerate to convey all that El Shaddai has in store for us. In the Talmud, it makes mention of two messiah’s. There is one, who suffers and is rejected. The other who procedes him will reign gloriously. The one who suffers, is known as, ”
Mashiac ben Yosef,’ because like Joseph of Genesis 37, he is rejected by his own brethren, but ultimately glorified by God. Thus, the majority of Israel will reject this messiah. The second, ”
Mashiac ben David,’ is named as such for two reasons. Like David of the Tenach, he will reign gloriously as a king and subjugate the gentile nations under Israel. As well, this messiah must come from the genealogical line of David. Invariably, its been assumed that these are two separate individuals. Humanly speaking, this is completely understandable. However, is this really the case? What would happen if Rabbinical scholars have been looking for two messiah’s, instead of one Messiah, at two different times? Jesus is Mashiac ben Yosef, and so died on that account that it might be counted as righteousness on our behalf, if we accept this gift. He poured out His life unto death to us all, and yet, not a single one of us is deserving of it. And when the last individual comes to Christ, He will return for His bride. And we will see the glory of His kingdom and the fulfillment of His promise when Jesus comes as Mashiac ben David, whom everyone was expecting during the time of Jesus. The Jews, whether Hasmoneans, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, they were all waiting for a Roman-butt-kicking warrior, as David was. Who did they get instead? A meek, Jewish carpenter who came from a land known for its high population of Gentiles.
So what does Scripture say about these two times in history of Mashiac appearing?
“And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. It shall come to pass in that Day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left.” -Isaiah 11:10-11
notice the word "king." jesus never sat on the throne of judah. this verse applies to david.
Jesus was a King, came from the line of David on Joseph and Mary's lineage, and entered through the east gate on a donkey. For a brief moment in time, He was recognized as the messiah-king.
also, the word is , or "meshiach." we commonly render this in english as "messiah." i would imagine the shin as an "s" is a mistake, and the chet to an "h" is pretty common (because we don't have the appropriate sound in english).
I'm just going by my Jewish Bible. I'm not Jewish, nor do I speak Hebrew. I assumed that you are Jewish and I'm merely trying to appeal to the Jewishness of Scripture.
except for that nasty bit about exile. judah lost its line of davidic kings around 600 bc.
“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from the line of David; He will do what is just and right in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the Name by which he will be called: ”The Lord Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the lord says, ”David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of David. -Jeremiah 33:14-17
frankly, i'm still waiting for this. i think the middle east is, too.
Yeah, and that's the whole point. If we dilegently read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelations then we will clearly know what to expect and watch it unfold before our eyes while the world mocks us.
judah was the ROYAL line
All i said was that Moshiac is supposed to come out of Judah. I was not referring to the place, but the of the Royal line.
half of the things you mention don't even concern the messiah, but the ORIGINAL line of kings.
I'm not sure what you mean here, can you expound?
he's usually regarded as the "FIRST" jewish king, though that's only because nobody likes saul.
Yeah, even though he wasn't the actual, literal first king, David is considered the first and the greatest king to rule of Yisrael and Y'hudah.
no, not israel. judah. israel was the country to the north, and the line of kings there was deemed sinful by the authors of the book of kings. (find me a righteous king of israel -- they don't exist in the bible)
I can't locate the Scripture I'm thinking of, but it says that in the latter days (I'm paraphrasing here), that Judah and Israel will be consolidated into one. That's all that I'm arriving at.
one: he's a man. two: he's fighting the assyrians. his "goings on" are told from "everlasting." in otherwords, he's been prophesied about.
The Scripture I referrenced is unmistakably messianic. I think Rabbinical scholars would agree with me. As far as your following referrnce, I would say that it does not present a problem. There is, however, another prophecy yet to be fulfilled that most Bible scholars are not united on. Another prophecy has been given to us by the prophet Isaiah concerning Assyria (modern day Syria). I am unclear whether this happens before the rapture or after. I would like to think this happens just before as a final warning to prepare our hearts, but I can’t help to think of the explicit verses given to us by Jesus where He tells us to be ready. Jesus is going to come ”like a thief in the night.’ He has asked that we be doing all that He commanded, which is to preach the gospel and be a light to a world so full of darkness. He has asked that we heal the sick and visit those in prison and to love even our enemies that they may come to repentance and come to His saving grace. Regardless, of whether Syria’s outcome will come before or after the Rapture is inconsequential. It is Biblical prophecy, and therefore, it will come to pass. Only ”when’ and ”how’ are relevant and applicable questions that only the future can tell.
“An oracle concerning Damascus: ”See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a ruinous heap. The cities of Aroer will be deserted.” -Isaiah 17:1-2
Damascus is the capital of Syria and is said to be the oldest, continuously inhabited city in human history. ”Aroer’ is a city in south central Jordan. Both countries are staunchly opposed to Israel. We are currently unsure where this prophecy fits, as far as chronology is concerned. Nonetheless, the events described will take place. I personally feel that this event will precipatate the beginning of WWIII. With the newly acquired nuclear technology, at least in relation to all of human history, the world is constantly in fear of nuclear proliferation. Is it so impossible for us to concieve the plausibility of this given the current, hostile disposition of the Middle East? Certainly not! Ask any heads of nations today how serious of a threat this truly is, irrespective of whether they believe in Bible prophecy or not. I believe that his is the event that will unleash destruction on a level never before seen by mankind. Nations will take sides and make war with one another. When this dramatic, sequence of events takes place, the whole world take notice.
: For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom
That is exactly how my Bible renders it, however, when I translate it, it renders to [wonder of a counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace].
further, thought this name is long, similar names are not uncommon. israel is "god rules." ezekiel is "strength of god." joel is formed from both the proper name of god, and the word "god." is joel god? samuel is shem and el, "his name is god"
True, but why elucidate the point by providing four names if there was not something much more symbolic to the name?
well, ezekiel is refered to as "mighty god" isn't he? he also calls himself "son of man." kind of curious, hmm?
I can't remember what Yechezek means. All I know is the 'el.' LOL. I'll look it up though to be certain.
achad. or achat, depending on gender. and it's a word, like any other. it means "one" or sometimes "first" depending on context. there are no pseudo-spirital concept connected to it, it's just a word.
I'm not suggesting that there is some spiritual context. I'm merely showing that their use of 'echad' as opposed to simply a numeric account is interesting.
two verbs are linked to "god" in the sentance. "amar" which is "speak" and is in singular form, and "asah" which is "create" and is also in singular form. "elohim" in this sentance is SINGULAR.
Strong's renders it as a plural noun. As well, this Name has been debated for centuries by Messianic Jews and Hasidic Jews. I don't know enough Hebrew to state definitavely, but Strongs is a very good concordance.
they equate it with idolatry not because of multiple aspect, but because christians actively worship a god who is by definition mortal -- he died for our sins.
We know that God is one. We just think that God has three personages, not personalities. Similarly, Kabbalah gives referrences to 12, but the irony about is, no one seems to care about that or equate it to polytheism.
john is a bit gnostic for my tastes.
By Gnostic, do you mean in referrence to spiritual or that it belongs with the other gnostic texts?
again, for an idea with no foundation in judaism, no basis in the torah, god set us clear rules about who we are to worship, and it is him alone
If Jesus is God then we are worshipping God. If the Spirit of God is God then we are worshipping God. God is one, no doubt.
and if i ask you to go the kitchen and get me a glass of water, what do i expect? i can't drink vapor, and i can't drink ice. the characteristics are important to the actions -- the father is the one we worship, just like water is the one we drink.
Is not all H2O the exact same things? Remove all the impurities and H2O is H2O, whether they have different properties or not.
no, he was being redundant.
Perhaps he was, but I doubt it.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning
™ Version 4.2
