Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus God?
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 370 of 492 (554995)
04-11-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by hERICtic
04-11-2010 7:20 AM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
A simple question:
Exodus 7:1 1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee elohiym to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Moses is clearly called elohiym, which is god. God made Moses this way.
Is Moses god? Yes or no?
This is almost to embarrasing to respond to. Do you see in Moses the things attributed to Christ. When i asked for an example i menat an example where ALL the Characteristics attributed to Christ as deity, are attributed too any man or angel,
So what does the heritical heritic do, he gives us an example of a passage where the scripture makes it clear that Moses will be "AS" God to pharoah and Aaron will be your prophet
Adam Clarke on this passage "Verse 1. I have made thee a god
At thy word every plague shall come, and at thy command each shall be removed. Thus Moses must have appeared as a god to Pharaoh. "
" 1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, "
"Like God" "I have made you", "everything I command you". "I will harden Pharhroas heart", "I will multiply my miracles, signs and wonders"
Now let me ask you a question? Does it appear Moses is God to you?
Hebrews does NOT says, Of the son he says, thy throne shall be LIKE Gods."
Hebrews does not say, Of Moses, thy throne oh God"
This is the best you can muster Mister? if it is, the debate is over.
it is ironic that you use John chapeter 9 to demonstrate your point, since nearly every part of it is counterfactual to your belief
When he said "I am the one"
They did not pick up stones
When he said "Iam he"
they did not pick up stones
When he said Jesus was a prophet to the pahrisees
They did not pick up stones to stone him
When he insulted the pharisees
They did not pick up stones to stone him
After all of this, he falls later at jesus' feet and adores and worships him
Maybe the Jews of that day understood jesus to mean he was equating himself with God. maybe the Jews understood the blind man to be doing nothing of the sort, so all they did was throw him our and call him a sinner.
Your task is an impossible one, to provide an example of a man or angel with all the things attributed to Christ.
Has it ever Dawned on you that the reason people believe he is God is because that is excally what the scriptures teach?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by hERICtic, posted 04-11-2010 7:20 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by hERICtic, posted 04-11-2010 2:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 372 by hERICtic, posted 04-11-2010 3:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 373 of 492 (555063)
04-12-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by hERICtic
04-11-2010 2:56 PM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
A simple question:
Exodus 7:1 1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee elohiym to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Moses is clearly called elohiym, which is god. God made Moses this way.
Is Moses god? Yes or no?
Son, you cant expect me to take you serious if you cant even see the difference between, "I have made", "be like" and "as" God to pharoah, verses "You will actually be God"
If you want to be taken serious as a debater, dont just skip over arguments and statments. Even your translation states, "I have made you God to Pharoah". Since God is eternal and is not made, even a tyro in logic can see what is being implied in the passage.
Please be serious or I cant take you serious.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by hERICtic, posted 04-11-2010 2:56 PM hERICtic has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 384 of 492 (555142)
04-12-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by hERICtic
04-12-2010 7:35 AM


Re: Jesus - God Processed to be Eaten
Sigh.... Another rant, another non-answer. Its a simple question. Actually, if you wish to be taken seriously: stop jumping to conclusions, stop creating strawman arguments, stop avoiding questions and stop the insults.
Case in point: My question has nothing to do with Hebrews as you assumed. My question has nothing to do with "if' god can be created. All I did was take scripture and ask YOU what it meant. Thats it.
Its an actual quote from the Bible. I'm asking you to tell me what it means. Why is that so difficult?
You cant be serious, nobody is that stupid. No offence intended. If I ask you do the words, "I make", "Like" and "as" God to pharoah, make a diiference to the meaning of the passage, do you not see that I am answering your question in the negative.
Noooooooooooooooo, God is not saying Moses is actually God, he is saying you will appear "AS God to Pharoah, because IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, give you these signs and wonders.
You have still avoided my original challenge to produce a man or angel that ascribes all the characteistics to them of deity, that are ascribed to Christ in the NT, not simply Jesus own words, even while those would be sufficient
Ill accept your inability to do this as a failure on your part, while I am still waiting
The scripture Trinitarians use in the gospels is so flimsy (except John 1:1), that its very damning that the High Priest and the Council would have easily brought up the fact Jesus claimed to be god...if thats what he did. They wanted evidence to put Jesus to death. Claiming to be god is a major offense. Yet they didnt make the claim, the actual witnesses to Jesus didnt make the claim nor did the false witnesses make the claim.
So I asked (now for the fourth time) why is that? Does it make more sense that Jesus never claimed to be god hence why they didnt use that as evidence or that he did claim to be god, but they decided not to mention it?
I am glad that you see John 1:1 as clear cut example of Jesus deity, thank you.
Further, Jesus refered to himself as the Son of Man, the Son of God and the IAM at different times, when beign charged as being equal with God, he used all three in response to the clear charge of or making himself equal with God.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge only two of these usages and reject the other. We acknowledge all three, the Jews acknowledged all three when they were used and in ALL instances wanted to stone or kill him when used all or one of them at any given time.
Your method of accepting two and rejecting the other is obvious because you have a doctrine to tout.
If he said, in response to, "Only God may forgive sins', he replied, "Which is it easier to do tell the man to take up his bed and walk or thy sins are forgiven thee, BUT that you may know that the son of man has power to forgive sins here or earth"
Or if he said, "You call me a blasphemere, becuase I say Iam the Son of God"
Or if he said, "before Abraham was, IAM"
Why is there a NEED on your part to change the third into something you want it to be, instead of what it clearly says
here is the point, Jesus WAS accused of making himself equal to God by his ACCUSERS, Yes or No? if he was, it is of no consequence where the accusation was formulated or when or where it was brought up, even if not at his trial
Will you deny that they accused him of making himself equal with God at all. Will you deny that in each instance Jesus uses one of three responses? the only way to get around what he said in each situation is to simply change HIS and the rest of the NTs meanings to tout your doctrine.
If there is no harm in the expression, "I and the father are one "and I am in the father and he is in me" and these expressions are harmless like the blind man, where was there misunderstanding"
There was no misunderstandin in the blind mans situation because they knew he was not claiming what Jesus was claiming.
Did the blind man say, "the Father, Jesus and I are one"? Did the blind man ever say, "before you Pharisees WERE. IAM"
You can keep being ignorant on this passage if you want but it does not help your case
Your grasping at straws to find a difference but have to change the whole meaning of IAM, to fit your doctrine. The Jewish leaders knew excally what he was implying
the rest of the NT will not let you do this and you know it. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND JESUS' WORDS IN THIER CONTEXT THE REST OF THE NT MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHAT THEIR MEANINFG IS. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE REST OF THE NT?
Simply meet my challenge and provde me with an angel or man that meets these qualifications of deity ascribed to Christ
Maybe you have a more rational explanation (than pegs) of why Jesus calls himself the First and the Last in the book of revelations, in the nearly the same paragraph after it is also ascribes it to God
You see I am confronted with a challenge. I can believe what you say IAM means or I can believe what the rest of the NT says.
Listen you Heritic, here is what it says the meaning of IAM is
"IAM the first and the Last" Revelations
This is the meaning of Jesus' words in the Gospel explained in Revelations. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
If you refuse to respond to the first part of this post, as I have now answered you three or four times, I will accept you as evasive or stupid, you decide.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by hERICtic, posted 04-12-2010 7:35 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by hERICtic, posted 04-12-2010 12:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 386 of 492 (555164)
04-12-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by hERICtic
04-12-2010 12:06 PM


Re: Jesus - God Processed to be Eaten
I also asked why the blind man is not god since he also claimed "I am"? You are adamant that since Jesus in John 8, said "I am", it MUST refer back to Exodus. You refuse to accept any other possibility. This is a perfect example of context.
And you are admamant that something must be attached to IAM in John 8, so I give it to you in the form of "IAM the first and the last" and i explain that this is a further explanation of IAM, according to the scripture and your best answer is:
"No its not" that is your best answer?
First we have to attach another meaning to IAM, Now we have to attach another meaning to "IAM the first and the Last" to accomdate heritics doctrine. Where will it stop?
Before Abraham, god". How does this make any sense. If "I am" is the name of god, then that it the exact response Jesus made.
IAM is not the name of God it is a title or designation. IAM is another way of saying God, so he did not say before Abraham was, God, he said before Abraham was IAM
Goodness, we have to change the words again to accodate his doctrine. WHERE WILL IT STOP
If I said a General can only give order to move against X and a Sergeant gives the order from the General, both actually gave the order. BUT...its the General who is ultimately in charge. ONLY the General can give the order, but he can give the power to another to pass the order along. Same applies for Jesus. God gave him the power (which the Bible clearly states over and over).
Does your story say that sergeant is also the General, ie, "IAM the first and the Last"?
Jesus never calls himself "I am". Not once. Feel free to present said scripture.
John 8 and in Revelations
God made Moses like god. You finally, in between all your assumptions and rudeness, stated he will "appear" as god.
Well, what does that mean then?
It means Moses is never called by himself, or God "The first and the Last" Only that he would be LIKE GOD to PHAROAH
Christ, the scriptures and God call Christ the samething God is called, "the first and the Last'. It does not say he IS LIKE THE FIRST AND THE LAST. Do you see the difference?
When you take the totalityof scripture into consideration you will come to the correct conclusion
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by hERICtic, posted 04-12-2010 12:06 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by hERICtic, posted 04-12-2010 10:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 397 of 492 (555374)
04-13-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by hERICtic
04-12-2010 10:13 PM


Re: Jesus - God Processed to be Eaten
heritic writes:
I am (no,I'm not calling myself god) in disbelief. There are hundreds upon hundreds of uses of "I am" throughout the Bible! By hundreds of speakers. Its how one talks when referencing themself! "I am" the first and last does not mean the "I am" is god, its god describing himself. I cannot really believe you just stated this.
Before Abraham, god". How does this make any sense. If "I am" is the name of god, then that it the exact response Jesus made.
Forgive me God in heaven, forgive me master Jaywill, for give me Peg and forgive me Heritic, but you Heritic, are probably the single most ignorant person, with which I have ever had an opportunity to have a discussion
Oh my God, Ive never seen a person dodge an obvious point so blantantly and ignorantly. Jesus said, "I am the the first and the last." Heritic. these are Jesus' words in revelations, they are Gods words in Isa. Do you need a brick to fall on your head?
"IAM", is not STRICLY the name of God , Jehovah is Gods name. God is but a single title, IAM is simply another title to reference, Iam that Iam. Look at Exodus 3:14
"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
Do you see how the 2 titles are used interchangably in a single sentence. God said..... call me IAM. God is a title for "IAM Who IAM, IAM is another title for, IAm that Iam. Christ chose to use it the same way God did in Exodus 3:14, that is why they wanted to stone him. he knew what he meant and so did the Jews. unbelievable!!!!!
So you admit, its another way of saying god. So then, yes-I am means god. Which again makes no sense. God calls himself I AM in Exodus. Therefore, god =I AM.
So it would read, "Before Abraham, god". "
it is not another way of saying God,it is another way of saying IAM that Iam. God is a reference to "I am that Iam", "Iam' is a reference to "Iam that Iam", as well
it does not read "God" in John 8, if you use the second title God used, in Exodus 3:14. Your changing it to say something Exodus does not say.
God did not say, tell them God has sent you, he used the exprression, IAM has sent you to Moses for the children of Isreal. he used it the same way Christ used it and that is why they wanted to stone him
I'm not sure what you are claiming. God clearly calls Moses god. You admit he is "like" god. So you're not actually addressing the question.
Why? What makes Moses like god?
I remember the Bogard-Warlick debate when one of my brethren, Joe S. Warlick was debating the famous baptist Ben M. Bogard. After much frustration he stood up and stated, Mr Bogard I think it is impossible for you to get anything correct. i believe you must be playing the dumb card heritic, for nobody is that ignorant.
Do you really need me to answer how Moses is like God when confronting Pharoah in that context. Ive already answered it 5 or six times and you pay no attention
So now its six times I have asked the same question...each time ignoring it.
Why didnt the High Priest, the Council, the witnesses and the false witnesses claim that Jesus called himself god?
What are you afraid of Ema? Six times I have asked you. Is this how you conduct yourself when debating? Are you being honest here?
Ive already answered this atleast twice now and you pay no attention. it does not matter when they accused him of this, only that they CLEARLY DID several other times. It is of no consequence whether they chose to do this at the MOCK trial, when they had already done it numerous times through his ministry
Ive already showed you in the context that Jesus never denied being God, he simply used terms that refered to his overall nature, when being charged with being equal with God Sometimes it was the Son of Man, Sometimes Son of God. Then at times HE made it very clear that he was implying he was God, by using the TITLE, IAM.
Only blind ignorance and avoidance would deny the fact that jesus used the expression the EXACT same way, God did in exodus 3:14. The passages are so similar that that only a tyro would miss it
I further demonstrated by his makeup and nature and by the rest of the NT that he is clearly God.. Please tell me what "I am the first and the Last" means in the context of revelations if it not a refernce to God
The fact that they did not bring this up at the trial is not an argument against what the rest of what jesus stated and what the rest of the NT says, that jesus is clearly God, that does not make it NOT TRUE because they did not bring it up at the trial
Yours is an observation NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. There are several insatnces in the Gospels when he was approached and they did not accuse him of making himself equal to God, there are on the other hand, several instances when they did charge him with this accusation.
After all of this you make the ridiculous comment that they did not charge him with being God, only that he made himself equal with God. Please, for the love of Pete will you tell me what the difference is. And remember this is in direct response to his use of IAM
Its a loaded question. Lets assume that no angel or man is equal to Christ. What exactly does that prove? Where did I ever state someone was equal to Jesus?
It demonstrates that if God is refered to as the "first and the last " and Christ is refered to as the "first and the last", in the same context in revelations and Christ boldly uses the same terminology, it demonstrates that no one is like christ and Christ is God.
This single passage destroys all of the JWs idiocy and contentions concerning whether jesus was actually God or not. You can have Cavedivers approval and Ill take Johns and Christs intimations and direct statements concerning Christ.
Youve still yet to demonstrate how from scripture Christ is not God. Youve still yet to demonstrate any characteristic God has that Christ does not as is firmly attested to in scripture. Youve still yet to provide man or angel with the same characteristics of deity as ascribed to Christ. youve lost this debate on that point alone
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by hERICtic, posted 04-12-2010 10:13 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by hERICtic, posted 04-13-2010 5:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 398 of 492 (555380)
04-13-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by cavediver
04-12-2010 10:35 AM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
Exactly The loops and hurdles that must be traversed to come to this "self-evident" fact that Jesus is God is hilarious. Similarly for the trinity. Of course you can extract both concepts with suitable reading, interpretation, and self-delusion - I did for over twenty years - but if God really thinks that these are essential truths of his salvation, "clearly" revealed in the Bible, he's one twisted bastard. The more I look back at this, the more sense I see in the JW interpretation, as it at least makes a more honest take on the Gospels than standard evangelical protestantism.
Not that I'm any comfort, as I think the JWs are just as deluded as the rest of Christedom, but at least I'm equally opportunities when it comes to my casting aspersions of delusion
Sorry I did not see this earlier or I most certainly would have responded to it.
here we have an example of a man that lives in constant fear of this life and the afterlife. He is so afraid that this may be true that he constantly monitors issues that to a real skeptic like Modulous, would really make no difference one one way or another.
but if God really thinks that these are essential truths of his salvation, "clearly" revealed in the Bible, he's one twisted bastard.
Notice how he has to explain to us what HE thinks should matter to God. Another sure sign he is trying once again in desparation hope against all hope he is correct, because if he is not he knows what the consequences are
Notice also, after his very careful observations (about matters that should not really matter to him) how he has to reassure US (really himself) that he thinks its all crap anyway. this is asure sign of his spinless nature and constant fear residing within himself
You make me sick, because you are a doubleminded, blown by the wind putz, that cant really make a decision in your own mind.
quit living in fear cavediver and choose a side, you doubleminded dog, returning to his own vomit. if old age is causing you that much confusion, simply make a choice and be done with it
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by cavediver, posted 04-12-2010 10:35 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by cavediver, posted 04-13-2010 11:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 400 of 492 (555396)
04-13-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by cavediver
04-13-2010 11:22 AM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
oh EMA, you sad tool. Take a look at my avatar, then check my name again. I've spent my life sailing so close to death, you'd drown in your own shit if you tried it. I once spent half an hour knowing I was going to die, never going to see my wife again, never going to see my child's birth. Guess how much of that 30 minutes I spent praying and worrying about the "afterlife"
Since you are dishonest about why this stuff is so important to you (or unimportant to you as you represent it to us) , there is no reason to believe that which you speak about above is not also exaggerated and also the thoughts you had while this alleged scenerio was taking place.
Since you are the one always asking for hard evidence, what evidence would you provide to me, what your thoughts were during this alledged situation, outside of your word.
Since you will not take the words of Christ or the Apostles on these matters, why should i take your word or what you say your thoughs were during this alledged situation
Since you can provide me with no hard evidence as to your thoughts and concerns, you story is just that, A STORY, correct
Still want to bandy words with me?
Not matter to me??? I was a fucking evangelical Christian for over twenty years - or is it convenient for you to forget that? I probably spent more time preaching and leading bible study than you've spent "saved". Of course this shit matters to me - I lived and breathed it for half of my life. And as a Christian what I learned to hate was the shit that Christians read into the OT (and NT to a lesser degree) to bolster their own misguided theology. In the end I was not prepared to say "and we can ready into this passage that this obviously means this" when it blatently did not - such as the Titus passages I discussed earlier and Isaiah just now.
So, now that you've embarrassed youself in your own drool, why not crawl back to Jesus - he'd be so proud of the post you've just mailed
Interesting you have now confirmed to everyone that within your heart of hearts, you still believe it in the recesses of your mind. That is, as, a beautiful a testimony as I have ever heard.
You are not past the point of no return, as some here clearly are CD, but you are close . Just come home, there is no shame and the father will be waiting, as is indicated in the story of the prodigal son. he is still watching and waiting for you to resume those Bible lessons that you still have within you.
Your interest and words give you away.
Good luck in the water and in the future
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by cavediver, posted 04-13-2010 11:22 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by cavediver, posted 04-13-2010 1:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 401 of 492 (555414)
04-13-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by cavediver
04-13-2010 11:22 AM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
Cavediver writes:
Take a look at my avatar, then check my name again.
What? you went scooba diving and got yourself caught between a rock and a hard place
Look out Gulf War veterans we have a real hero on our hands here fellas
Maybe if you werent trying to film yourself and dive at the same time this would not have happened
Just kidding CD
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by cavediver, posted 04-13-2010 11:22 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 403 of 492 (555424)
04-13-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by cavediver
04-13-2010 1:39 PM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
What, to a group that has people such as you as associates? Who the hell would want that? I must say, we get some of the worst ambassadors for Christianity at EvC, but you really sink to new lows. But then, I guess you're only doing what Jesus would do... right?
Paul said in galatians, rather harshly, Oh FOOLISH Galatians. I marvel that you are so soon removed from the truth, but because I chatise you and tell you the truth you become my enemy
if it will get you home, yes CD i will do what I need to within the scriptures
Good luck BROTHER
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by cavediver, posted 04-13-2010 1:39 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 408 of 492 (555510)
04-14-2010 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by jaywill
04-13-2010 10:26 PM


Re: God is not a man
heritic writes:
You missed three very important scriptures though in reference to god being a man.
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. [Hosea 11:9]
jaywill writes:
By this time the incarnation had not taken place. So it is understandable for God to say that then He is not a man.
The Word had not yet become flesh (John 1:14).
To be fair, God did appear in human form in the Old Testament. But the 9 months He spent in the woman's womb and the subsequent birth as a child had not occured.
So God saying that He is not a man in Hosea is not a problem to the incarnation.
Until this last post to you by heritic I thought I was dealing with someone who understood simple Biblical teachings and concepts, I was wrong, now I see what is going on. Ill let your capable hands take it with him from here, if you so choose.
That is if they let us keep it open and peg offers more responses worthy of something that has not been covered
Ill try to start on the other thread tommorrow. hope you guys are still interested in it
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by jaywill, posted 04-13-2010 10:26 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 409 of 492 (555511)
04-14-2010 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by hERICtic
04-13-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Jesus - God Processed to be Eaten
Peg and I have had some indepth debates, yet neither of us ever insulted the other. No matter how frustrating.
If you wish to continue, lose the child like behavior. Act like an adult. This is suppose to be a friendly debate, perhaps heated, but it does not have to fall apart bc you cannot stop with the insults.
Of course you are correct here, I apologize for the insults, just get carried away. Ill let the Jayman take it from here. good luck with your search. if there is anything you would like me to specifically address feel free to present it again and Ill explain again, from my perspective
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by hERICtic, posted 04-13-2010 5:39 PM hERICtic has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 413 of 492 (555574)
04-14-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Peg
04-14-2010 2:57 AM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
So its Gods spirit that qualified them to teach just as it is Gods spirit which qualifies the jw writing committee to produce the publications they produce.
In the scriptures there is a biblical pattern for those that had the direct Spirit of God, in the case of law givers. IOWs they knew that Moses got the commandments from God due to the miracles that accompanied him.
Again, the Apostle Paul said, "I did not come to you in word only but in power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit"
1 Thes 1: 5"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Spirit, and with much assurance.
Again he said, "the signs of an Apostle were wrought amoung you"
2 Cor 2:12 "When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you."
There is a Biblical pattern that law givers from God are carried along so that those that hear alleged SPOKSMEN from God, can confirm this by the signs that follow them.
The Master Jesus said, "If you do not believe me for the words that I speak, believe me for the works that I do because they testify of me"
If JW leaders can despense new truth outside the written established word, are you claiming that they have such ablities to confirm these new truths?
Or are you claiming that they like the Pope, when they speak on spiritual matters are infallible in thier interpretations. Infallability would of course also be a Spiritual (Miraculous) gift
The Biblical pattern seems to be that law givers were QUALIFIED by the signs that followed them. How would you say your followers are guided by the Spirit?
What excally do they give us, if they do that is different from the written established word?
More importantly, is there any way as in the scriptures we could CONFIRM their alleged DIRECT INSPIRATION from God in Watch Tower publications, the way the people confirmed the Apostles new doctrine, by the accompanment of signs and miracles.
IOWs why would we believe their revelations any more than say, the Mormons claims to new teaching?
Just a thought
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 2:57 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 9:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 416 of 492 (555621)
04-14-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by jaywill
04-14-2010 12:18 PM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
I understand the complaint of some that passages seemed more aimed at Cyrus, or Hezekiah, or Solomon, or David, or Zechariah, etc should not be applied to Jesus Christ.
Critics with this reasoning cry "Dual Meaning" as a protest. However, ALL of the promises of God find their ultimate Yes and Amen in Jesus Christ.
So Paul wrote: "For as many promnises of God as there are, in Him [Christ] is the Yes; therefore also through Him is the Amen to God, ..." (2 Cor. 1:20)
All of the positive promises of God find their ultimate fulfillment in the Son.
This is why Jesus said that He was the greater temple, and the greater Jonah, and the greater Solomon.
" ... behold something more than Jonah is here." (Matt. 12:41
" ... behold, something more than Solomon is here." (Matt. 12:42)
"But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here." (Matt. 12:6)
Based on this priniciple, as good as Hezekiah may have been, Jesus is the greater Hezekiah. As great as Solomon may have been, Jesus is the greater Solomon. All that came before Jesus may have been more or less good. But none were perfect as the Son of God.
So while I do acknowledge that some prophecies had an immedient referent that was prior to Jesus Christ, they were the imperfect referent. He is the ultimate AMEN to the promises of God.
Look at Hezekiah for example. When it was time for him to die, he wept and requested a little longer to live. God was merciful and granted him 15 more years.
Immediately after we have the record of his boasting to the Babylonians about his treasures which led to the downfall of Hezekiah's kingdom. His pride was exposed and became the undoing of his people.
What was the good king's response ? It is telling. He said in essence "Well, as long as there is peace in my time, it is OK".
So much for the Wondeful Counselor. He only cared about his own reputation in the end. He fell short. Jesus was the only Man absolute for the will of the Father. And Jesus completed that which Hezekiah lacked.
You have to grasp this truth in the Bible, that ALL who went before the Son of God, though many times good, nonetheless fell short. None could qualify to be the Savior of mankind.
Jesus is therefore the REAL Hezekiah who cared nothing for Himself in the end. He was totally absolute for the will of His Father.
Probably, Hezekiah just should have died when God told him it was time to go. God probably knew that the wise king could not take any more temptation. His imperfection was thus exposed.
But Jesus Christ, God incarnate is the greater Solomon, the greater David, the greater Hezekiah and the reality of all the positive promises of God in the OT.
Listening to ya. its like going to college and getting free Bible lessons. Outstanding!!!!
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by jaywill, posted 04-14-2010 12:18 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by jaywill, posted 04-14-2010 4:58 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 423 of 492 (555699)
04-15-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Peg
04-14-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
JW's dont do that. There are no new truths outside the bible. The bible has been provided by God and it contains all the truth we need. All our teachings come from this source...we dont invent new ones. No one should do that.
Rom. 15:4 "For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.
In this post we are in NEARLY 100% agreement, happily. I represented YOUR belief, to myself, about revelation from God in that previous post of yours, based on what i had read about your GROUP in articles and websites
Happily, we may be in argeement on this partiular issue, of revelation from God, what it is, and what it is not, based on atleast your words at present
The only sign a christian needs is that of faith, hope and love. Paul explained why this would be the case when he explained that the holy spirit would reveal understanding and no more signs would be needed. The signs of the past were to establish christianity, once it was establishded, no more signs would be needed:
"1Cor13:8-13 "8 Love never fails. But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; 10 but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with....12 For at present we see in hazy outline...but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately.."
On this one i was really shocked, due to the fact that I have never seen anyone outside the Church of Christ, refer to the fading of spiritual (miraculous) gifts, in Pauls time and shortly thereafter and use the very same passage to confirm it.
We believe, "that which is perfect" to be the completed word of God, which replaces the miraclous spiritual gifts, that were given for a time, or "in part"
Also the Name Jehovah showed them that there was a clear difference between Jehovah and Jesus, thus they knew the trinity doctrine was not true and this made a lot of other things clearer with regard to the kingdom of God.
While we still disagree here and in the spirit of this thread, why would the belief that Jesus is not Jehovah, make your understanding of the kingdom CLEARER?
The study of the original hebrew words also revealed to them teachings such as the immortal soul, hellfire & pergatory were not correct....jw's thought they were all going to heaven too you know. But they were willing to change that view when their understanding increased.
When you say JWs, do you mean all Jws? you almost make it appear as though your group started out on the wrong foot and with most or alot of your views incorrect from the start.
were they correct about these things from its inception, then fell away, or what?
As i've already shown Pauls words about signs/gifts being done away with, we should look at what would would be required of christians in order for them to be blessed with knowledge.
Ok
Christians really do have to put on the 'mind of Christ' if they want to recieve holy spirit. And with holy spirit, true understanding is possible because it comes from God.
Since most groups would agree with your above statement and most believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit, yet still disagree, what is the crteria for yourself or group that says, ALRIGHT WE HAVE IT CORRECT NOW?
this is not a question to put you on the spot or trap. it is an honest inquiry as to what you think that stamp of approval actually is from the Holy Spirit
This is certainly a good transition to the other thread
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Peg, posted 04-14-2010 9:13 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Peg, posted 04-15-2010 3:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 426 of 492 (555747)
04-15-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Peg
04-15-2010 3:44 AM


Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
Because we know the role of Jesus is to bring manking into union with Jehovah thru the kingdom of God. His role is not to take worship away from Jehovah... remember Jehovah is Jesus God too. If we dont understand that these two are separate individuals and we worship Jesus alone, this would be detrimental to becoming united with the Creator Jehovah.
Im not sure what you mean by "Jehovah is
jesus God too", but it is pretty certain we never agree on this topic
if I had any doubts before Jaywill's expositions, I didnt really, but if I had, he has closed the door on any of those doubts.
I can see your concerns, concerning Jesus' expressions about being sent and having no authority except from God, etc. But when they are understood in the light of recievership, servanthood and the totality of scripture, concerning his overall nature, the teaching is to easy to miss.
Whether God makes this an issue of salvation we shall see
Just for a brief rundown, Brother russell (where jw's started from) was originally a presbyterian so his beliefs were based on everyone elses beliefs.
Alot of Mr Russels and Mr Joseph Smiths beliefs were directly connect to Alexander Campbell, Barton W Stone and other restoration movement pioneers beliefs in the Churches of Christ, Deciples of Christ and the Christian Chruch, we simply believe they went to far in their estimations and escatology
Thats probably why we share the same belief concerining spiritual miraculous gifts
Peg from down under over at Melbourne writes:
For example, do you think Gods spirit will dwell with someone who participates in pagan practices? Or will Gods spirit dwell with someone who does not uphold his righteousness, his love, his justice, his mercy?
It is the first part of this post I shall proceed with the other thread, because we certainly agree on your latter statement
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Peg, posted 04-15-2010 3:44 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Peg, posted 04-16-2010 2:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024