Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus God?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 439 of 492 (557013)
04-22-2010 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Dawn Bertot
04-22-2010 2:38 AM


EMA writes:
Just a quick question. why do you say it was Paul that began the persecution instead of saul?
they are the same person. Saul is his hebrew name and Paul is he romanized name.
EMA writes:
Why, if Saul was actually one of the people, say for example, that was in the garden that night or at Christ's trial beofre Pilot, why he never mentions in particular, these instances or any others concerning events during his lifetime, Christs lifetime that is
Who says that he was one of the ones in the garden? I've never read anyting in the bible to say that he was among those who arrested Jesus... i dont believe he was even at Jesus trial.
EMA writes:
if this were the case it seems likely that he would have mentioned some of those specifics, had he actually saw and witnessed Christ or John the baptist
Im sure if he had any contact with Jesus, we would see it written but the bible accounts do not say that Paul/Saul witnessed Jesus or John. What we know of Paul before he became a witness come from a few things mentioned about him by others and by his own admissions.
The fact that there is no mention of Paul having contact with Jesus while he was still alive shows that Paul was not a follower, was not one who sought Jesus out and likely never witnessed Jesus miracles.
He was an opposer of the newly formed congregation as he attests. It wasnt until Jesus appeard to him on the road to Damascus that Paul became a believer and a christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2010 2:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2010 9:50 AM Peg has replied
 Message 441 by jaywill, posted 04-22-2010 9:52 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 447 of 492 (557116)
04-22-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Dawn Bertot
04-22-2010 9:50 AM


EMA writes:
Your a trip Peg from down under over at Melbourne. I am aware of these facts you are presenting, Im asking WHY that was the case. it doesnt seem reasonable that it should only be that way. With Christs popularity and fame and the stir he created and Paul/Sauls zealouness why he would not have sought him out.
why didnt the priests seek out Jesus? Why only Nicodemus?
The answer is that the Jews were expecting a liberator. They had the idea that the Messiah was going to be someone powerful and prestigous to topple the Roman yolk.
Jesus was nothing more then a poor carpenter from a hick town where nothign exciting ever happened. If you look at Jesus stern rebuke to the religious authorities you'll see that there was a great divide between the people. There were the very rich and the very poor. The very rich were the leaders and they viewed the poor in a very bad light. They even had a derogatory term that they called all poor people by...Amharets. It means 'earth people' or people of the dirt. And they treated them like dirt.
To the rich classes, Jesus was one of those people of the dirt. Do you really think that they were going to come down off their lofty position and raise Jesus to the status of a rich person?
EMA writes:
Also if Paul had seen Christ (which it seems likely he did not), he would have seen and responded to Christs message and miracles, due to Pauls nature. or he would have immediatley tried to stamp him out OR convert and immediately defend him or confront him verbally
i believe that if Paul had of seen Jesus miracles, he may have responded. He certainly responded when Jesus appeared to him on the road to damascus, but im sure most people would have under those circumstances if you know what i mean.
But Paul was of the rich class and by his own admission he was a zealout and a devout jew which is why he persecuted the christians. It also explains why he may not have been associating with Jesus....Jesus was a poor person and associated with other poor people, not many of the rich wanted to be seen in the company of the poorer classes. Thats probably why Jesus said "it will be easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle then for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God"
EMA writes:
My simple question is where and what was Paul doing during these three notable years. Hey, perhaps he was away on some sort of mission
Well he was a roman citizen, so he could have been in Rome during Jesus ministry. But also his age would be a factor too...he was only a 'young man' when Stephen was stoned so he may have only been a teenager when jesus was around which would have meant the he wouldnt have been travelling around on his own.
He was also studying Jewish law so he could have been locking himself away in a room burying his head in books and learning. Remember that Jesus ministry only lasted 3 years, so it wasnt a long time for the word to spread too far about Jesus.
And there is another thing to consider....there were many 'so called' christs coming and going. If Paul heard anythign about Jesus he could simply have put it down to another imposter pretending to be the messiah.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2010 9:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2010 8:43 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 450 of 492 (557207)
04-23-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by jaywill
04-22-2010 9:52 AM


Jaywill, why would God, who always identified himself as Jehovah in the OT, suddenly identify himself as Jesus?
And in the following verse, why does Jesus not call himself 'God'? It seems strange considering he has returned to his original position by this stage, yet he calls himself by an inferior earthly name.
Acts 9:3"Now as he was traveling he approached Damascus, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, 4and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? 5He said: Who are you, Lord? He said: I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."
If you look at the hebrew scriptures, God always refers to himself by his name Jehovah as do his prophets. I find it completely strange and highly unlikely that his name would now change to Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by jaywill, posted 04-22-2010 9:52 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by jaywill, posted 04-24-2010 1:08 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 451 of 492 (557211)
04-23-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Dawn Bertot
04-23-2010 8:43 AM


EMA writes:
Doesnt tradition say he he gave his life for his Lord in 65 AD, at about age 62. This would have made him close to 30 at the time of his conversion and Stephens death.
yes you could be right on that point. We have no indicators of age because as i mentioned in the other thread, the jews didnt celebrate birthdays so its hard to know an exact age when paul died. We know he was in prison when he was likely put to death and that was during Nero's reign.
EMA writes:
It is interesting to me that he has nothing to say (nor the book of Acts) about his doing and going about, during Christs ministry.
the bible wasnt written for the posterity of Paul or any other christians so to expect to see more information about their individual lives seems a bit besides the point. The point of the scriptures is to promote God...not the christians.
I dont find it strange that we dont know more about Paul. The few things we do know is enough. The fact is that Paul was not a diciple of Jesus before 33ce and was unknown to the early diciples so why do we need to know everything about pauls life before his conversion?
EMA writes:
these two I dismiss as improbable, due to the nature and popularity of Christ at that time.
On the one hand we want to defend Josephus' reference to Christ while others are dismissing it. Then when in another conversation people (we) often want to to down play the notiriaty and popularity of Christ and reduce it to a small area and a small group of people.
i think you are over stating the facts about Jesus popularity. After Jesus death we are told he had 5,000 diciples. Do you know what the population of Jerusalem was when Jesus died?
it was well over 1 million because in 70ce we are told by Josephus that 1million jews were killed by the romans. Whats that as a percentage of the population?
Less then 1 percent. Its actually 0.5 % and this is only going off an estimate of the population.
So no, i dont believe that jesus was all that popular by any means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2010 8:43 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2010 9:57 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 455 of 492 (557351)
04-24-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by jaywill
04-24-2010 1:08 AM


jaywill writes:
God also identified Himself as the One who would be pierced and mourned for as an only son:
If God died, who brought him back to life?
Or is that Jesus really did not die at all?
The only reason why any of the scriptures you use 'appear' to be saying what you imply they say is because you have made Jehovah into jesus and Jesus into Jehovah.
Of course if you do that, then your trinity stands up. But its not honest to do so.
Jaywill writes:
Numerous times I have had Jehovahs Witnesses to come to my doorstep. When I got down on my knees before them and gladly confessed Jesus Christ as Lord, I invited them to join me. Not once have they done so.
thats because we worship Jehovah and only Jehovah. Jesus is the one whom Jehovah has commissioned to bring mankind into harmony with himself...that is his role. But his role is not to take worship away from Jehovah.
jaywill writes:
You have never explained why Jehovah would change the name of the angel Michael to be Jesus Christ.
Christ means 'messiah' and Jesus was the name given to the Messiah by his mother mary. His earthly name was really just Jesus. It was only after he was identified as the Messiah that they called him the Christ/Messiah. His earthly name has no bearing on his heavenly name.
jaywill writes:
I do not believe the angel Michael is the Lord and Savior or that we all will bow the knee to Michael and confess his lordship. Rather I believe that to bow the knee to Jesus and to confess Jesus as Lord is to also fulfill Jehovah's promise that all will bow to Him in Isa, 45:23.
Scriptural evidence shows that after Jesus returned to heaven, his name went back to what it was. Michael is the only angel called the the archangel, meaning the foremost or chief angel. There is only one of them mentioned so it shows that God has designated one of the angels the head of all the angels.
1Thessalonians 4:16 tells us that Jesus will decend with the voice of an 'archangel'
16because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet
so obviously, seeing there is only 1 archangel, it must be Jesus. Also, Jesus was given all authority in heaven and on earth, so its reasonable that his 'authority' in heaven would make him the head of all the other angels up there because the archangel is the chief angel...or the first angel.
jaywill writes:
Jehovah does say that He will not give His glory to another (Isa. 42:8). So Trinity is a reality and the glory of God is in the face of Jesus.
this is where your reasoning confuses me everytime. You aknowledge that Jehovah does not give his glory to any other individual, but you also say that Jesus is God....this means that God gives his glory to Jesus....another individual.
Either God does not give his glory to anyone else, or he does....which is it?
Either he gives it to Jesus, or he doesnt....it can't be both.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by jaywill, posted 04-24-2010 1:08 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by jaywill, posted 04-25-2010 6:16 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 457 of 492 (557446)
04-25-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by jaywill
04-25-2010 6:16 PM


jaywill writes:
The passage I quoted simply said that they would look upon Me [Jehovah] Who they have pierced. And they will mourn for Him as an only son.
The "Him" must be Jesus.
did you know that John quoted from this verse in Zechariah and he rendered it quite differently to the way our modern translators have?
In John 19:35-37 he says: 36In fact, these things took place in order for the scripture to be fulfilled: Not a bone of his will be crushed. 37And, again, a different scripture says: THEY WILL LOOK TO THE ONE WHOM THEY PIERCED"
obviously John did not read the verse in zechariah the same way you are reading it. I think i will stick with Johns rendition and say that the verse in Zechariah does not contain the word 'me' but rather simply states 'they will look to the one whom they pierced'
jaywill writes:
It is understandable that human logic would ask "Well, if Jesus if God, and God died, then who raised God up from the dead ?"
God did. Who else ?
you realise that this means that God did not die which is why you dont want to ask any more questions about it.
Unfortunately, if God did not die, then there was no sacrifice for sins and mankind cannot be redeemed.
So either God died, or he didnt.
jaywill writes:
I don't think the Bible ever says "God died". But it does speak of His blood, Him being pierced. So this is very mysterious to us. But the peace of His indwelling surpasses any troubling brought about by the limitations of our ability to explain the eternal and uncreated Divine Being.
thats fairy talk. We cant explain something so we just ignore it???
No i can't accept that at all. God did not make the knowledge of him so confusing and confounding that we must simply ignore what we dont understand. He provides a clear and logical truth in the scritpures and the only way to attain that logical truth is by not adding untrue man made doctrines. The trinity is the very doctrine that causes you to ignore this question about whether God really died or not. You cant answer it because the trinity completely contradicts what the scriptures tell us.
Jesus died for 3 days....he was killed and buried and there were many witnesses who testified to Jesus death. They wrapped him in cloth and buried him in a tomb. The one who raised him was his father Jehovah.
jaywill writes:
Once again. I am not commanded to be able to explain. I am charged to BELIEVE and RECEIVE Christ. And the peace of God surpasses every man's understanding.
this is not the way believers in the first century accepted christianity. According to Acts the christians were individuals who examined the scriptures before they would accept them.
Acts 17:11Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.
If something doesnt add up, you should find out why it doesnt add up rather then just accept that it doesnt add up...otherwise what is your faith based on???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by jaywill, posted 04-25-2010 6:16 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by jaywill, posted 04-26-2010 10:39 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 459 of 492 (557564)
04-26-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by jaywill
04-26-2010 10:39 AM


jaywill writes:
You are just being clever now. Is it not true that no passage says that God died?
Yes or no?
Yes. This is because Jehovah did not die. Only Jesus died.
jaywill writes:
Where does it say Michael the angel died and rose for the redemption of sinners ?
Daniel was the prophet who spoke about the last days, yes? He mentioned that at that time, 'the time of the end', Micheal would stand up as a redeemer for the people of God
Daniel 12:1-9 12 And during that time Mi′cha‧el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book... 9And he went on to say: Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end..."
We also know that Jesus speaks about the 'time of the end' in Matthew and he tells us that, as the son of man, he will appear with great power and glory and rid the earth of Gods enemies
Matt 24:30And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory
And revelation also tells us that Jesus is the one who appears
Rev 1:7Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him
So Daniels prophecy ties in with these because it shows that in his heavenly position before he came to earth he was in fact the 'foremost' prince of heaven, the one who will bring an end to all mankinds woes....and we know him as Jesus christ.
jaywill writes:
I am not commenting further because I do not acknowledge when you write something wrong. You talk about ignoring. But you ignore when you say Jesus after ascension took on the old name Michael and I proved beyond a shadow of doubt that you were mistaken.
You ignore and continue with a "business as usual" attitude. If you do not have the decency to admit you made an error I feel no obligation to further address your issues.
my point is that, before he came to earth, his heavenly name was Micheal. We on earth know him as Jesus and he identified himself to Paul as Jesus because it was Jesus that Paul knew.
We still know him as Jesus, but my point is simply that his heavenly name was always Micheal. It was Micheal when Daniel wrote about him as the Angel who would stand up in the last days....and even Jude acknowledges this when he says "the Lord will decend with an Archangels voice"
your right, i made an error in saying that after his ascention to heaven he was known as Micheal. What i should have said was that to those in Heaven he is known as Micheal, but we continue to call him as Jesus.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by jaywill, posted 04-26-2010 10:39 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by jaywill, posted 04-27-2010 1:03 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 461 of 492 (557815)
04-28-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by jaywill
04-27-2010 1:03 PM


jaywill writes:
It is extremely mysterious to me. And not to me only but to the New Testament writer who spoke of "the mystery of God, Christ" ( Col. 2:2)
your bibles translation of this verse needs to be addressed.
My verse reads in full
Colossians 2:2 writes:
that their hearts may be comforted, that they may be harmoniously joined together in love and with a view to all the riches of the full assurance of [their] understanding, with a view to an accurate knowledge of the sacred secret of God, namely, Christ.
The 'sacred secret of God' was in fact the identity of the Messiah. It was called a sacred secret because the identity of the messiah was not known until Jesus appeared and all the prophecies about him were not fully understood until he made his appearance.
I've checked on some other translations of this verse and here they are:
New International Version: My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
New American Standard Bible: "that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself,
English Standard Version: "that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ,
As you can see, the above versions render this verse in the same way. It is saying that Christ is Gods mystery.
jaywill writes:
Let's grant you for a moment that Jehoavah God did not die. I cannot think of a verse saying Jehovah God died. But look at the facts. The man who said that before Abraham came into being, He was the I AM, identical to Jehovah of Exodus 3.
you may have missed my argument against this earlier, but the expressions were NOT identical.
The exodus expression not only used a different word, but also used the word as a title whereas when Jesus said it, it was said in the sense that he had existed before Abraham existed.
jaywill writes:
I don't think it is too dangerous to say that Jehovah died. We may say that. Or we may simply be silent about that and confess that Jesus died.
if that were true, then life is not dependent upon God and we could exist without him. I believe the scriptures tell us that by him we have life...without him we die. If God died for 3 days, then how did anyone survive?
jaywill writes:
How do you reason that at that time, the time of the end of the age, also means the time in which Jesus was born, lived, crucified, and resurrected ?
It doesnt mean the time Jesus lived...it means the time Jesus will return.
Daniels prophecy was to be put away until the 'last days'
In the last days is when this Great Prince will stand up in behalf of Gods people. The only one mentioned in the NT in the same context is Jesus. He promised he would return in the last days and at that time he would destroy Satan and all of Gods enemies.
Now tell my why Daniel calls this one, the Great Prince Micheal the Archangel who does this work?
jaywill writes:
It is about man RECEIVING God that God may indwell the saved man. God does this through the Spirit of God.
The New Testament is all about the indwelling of God. That is the indwelling of God in Christ and the dispensing of Christ as the Spirit into the saved that they may be born of God and live through an "organic" union with God.
Where does it say that God's plan is that Michael the angel would live in me ?
you talk alot about this 'indwelling' and it seems you take it literally, however, being in 'union' with God and Christ does not mean to have them living inside you literally. Its about being in unity with them. Living with the same purpose as them. Accepting their direction and bringing our conduct, way of life, thoughts and action into harmony with them.
The christians were also told to be in this same unity with each other at John 17:21 "in order THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us"
The christians were not going to 'indwell' in each other were they?
Being 'one' with God and Christ not about having God and christ live inside you....its about you living in harmony with them just as the christians were to live in harmony with one another.
jaywill writes:
"To which of the angels?" is asked as a challenge to refute. The answer is that, to no angel, either to Gabriel or to Michael, or to any other angel was it pronounced that He was Son of God.
Do not make excuse that "sons of God" in Job were angels. That challenged of Hebrews 1:5 still invites the reply that NO ANGEL was designated as Son of God.
How can you aknowledge that Job speaks of the angels as being 'sons of God' but then deny that any angel was called a 'son of God' that is a contradiction. All spirit creatures, no matter what their rank is, are called 'angels'. This is because Angel means 'Messenger'
Do you deny that Jesus was a messenger? He was Gods annointed messenger and therefore he can rightly be called by the name 'angel'
I think you continue to refuse this fact because if you aknowledge that Jesus could have been an angel, then you have to accept that Jesus could not have been God.
But with regard to Hebrews 1:5, the verse before it shows that Jesus was 'elevated' to a position higher then the angels.
Vs 3 and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
Now please explain why this fact would need to be mentioned if Jesus was always higher then the angels?
If he was God, he would not have 'inherited' a name 'better' then theirs because his name would have ALWAYS been better then theirs. And he would not have been compared in any way to the angels.
Really, what Paul is explaining is that Jesus was elevated above all the angels because of his sacrifice. Paul would not have needed to state this fact if he did not believe that Jesus was an angel.
jaywill writes:
This passage does not mean that the Lord's voice is that of an archangel.
Im sure you know the scripture that tells us that to Jesus "every knee must bend in heaven and on earth"
If Jesus is not the Archangel, then this statment is false because the angels in heaven are bending their knee to the 'Archangel' who is the Head or Chief angel...the one who is in charge.
1Thessalonians 4:16 says Jesus will descending from heaven with a commanding call with an "Archangels" voice. Its only logical that he be described by a word that supports his authority. If we try to apply archangel to some other angel, and not Jesus himself, then Jesus position is brought into question because the Archangel means 'the Chief' or the 'first'
It cannot be anyone else but Jesus.
jaywill writes:
How can you prove that those in heaven know Jesus as Michael ? Your Jehovah's Witness literature only teaches that. Point me to one single passage, or any passage proving that in heaven Jesus is called Michael.
c'mon, Paul says in 1Thess that Jesus will decend from heaven with an Archangels voice. That should be clear enough for you.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by jaywill, posted 04-27-2010 1:03 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 7:30 AM Peg has replied
 Message 464 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 9:01 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 463 of 492 (557835)
04-28-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by jaywill
04-28-2010 7:30 AM


jaywill writes:
Since Jesus says no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and whoever the Son reveals the Father to, it stands to reason that Christ is the mystery of God. And God is a mystery unless He is revealed to us by Christ.
its good to see we agree on something
I thought you were saying that God is a mystery which is why you cant explain if he died or not....sorry if i misunderstood you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 7:30 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 465 of 492 (557954)
04-28-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by jaywill
04-28-2010 9:01 AM


jaywill writes:
Jehovah the Mighty God was also in the womb of a woman for 9 months being born as indicated by Isa. 9:6.
there is no verse stating that Jehovah was in mary's womb for 9mths. You cannot make such a claim.
jaywill writes:
It means that Michael the prince will fight for Israel. Michael the angel was there in Daniel fighting for Israel in captivity by helpiong Daniel get messages from God.
So you beleive that the 'last days' and 'end times' had been and gone before jesus lived?
If thats the case, why did Jesus use Daniels prophecy in fortelling future events in his own time?
jaywill writes:
That he stands up at the end times means that he will do much of the same that he is doing in the book of Daniel in standing against the spiritual advasaries in the heavenlies.
You mean like Johns prophecy in Revelation 12:7, 8, where we read: And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail.
But didnt you just say that Daniels prophecy was already fulfilled in Daniels time?
The nature of a 'prophecy' is a future event...so John was speaking of this same prophecy about Micheal the great prince as a future event.
jaywill writes:
I do not deny that unity and harmony are an issue. But the unity and harmony are brought about by the indwelling of God's life which He dispenses into the saved. They are born with that divine life and must learn to walk in it. It is a mingling of God with man.
can you provide me a few of these scriptures that use this term 'indwelling' please. You are speaking a lot about it, but none of the verses you are providing actually use the term 'indwelling'....or have i missed them?
jaywill writes:
Yes, in one sense Jesus is the sent Messenger. I agree with this. But Jesus Christ is not any angel in the sense of Gabriel or Michael. For Christ is God over all, blessed forever (Romans 9:5).
What do you think these angels are? Are they not spirit sons of God?
Does God not call them his 'holy myriads'?
Are they not living in the same form as God himself?
They are spiritual beings with powers beyond anything we can imagine....why do you think christ is not liviing in the same form as them?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 9:01 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 7:57 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 467 of 492 (558078)
04-29-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Natural_Design
04-29-2010 7:57 AM


nice to see your input Natural_Design
Just letting you know that not all christians believe Jesus is God. We believe him to be the son of God as he said he was.
Jehovah is the creator of the universe, Jesus is a created being...he was actually the 'firstborn' of all creation according to the Holy Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 7:57 AM Natural_Design has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Zoinks, posted 05-02-2010 1:17 PM Peg has replied
 Message 482 by Zoinks, posted 05-04-2010 3:05 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 471 of 492 (558598)
05-02-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Zoinks
05-02-2010 1:17 PM


Zoinks writes:
In the begining was the word and the word was God!
The Word became flesh.
This hints that Jesus was there with God at the begining before creation.
you should never read just a part of a scritpure and assume you've got it clear
"in the beginning was the word and the word was WITH God"
A writer would never use the word 'with' if he was only speaking about 1 individual.
The word was WITH God. So the word cannot BE God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Zoinks, posted 05-02-2010 1:17 PM Zoinks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 8:37 PM Peg has replied
 Message 473 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 12:02 AM Peg has replied
 Message 474 by Zoinks, posted 05-03-2010 2:14 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 475 of 492 (558684)
05-03-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Apothecus
05-02-2010 8:37 PM


Re: Question...
Apothecus writes:
I can see that these two parts somewhat contradict each other (...with God, or was God: which is it?) and I was curious as to what some of the bible buffs have to say about it.
it has to do with the translation of the verse into english. We have had many discussion on this verse and I take the view of some translators who show that the word was 'divine' in nature, but not God himself. We say this because in John 1:1 the definite article (ho) is not used in front of theos when referring to the Son, the Word. It has to do with greek grammar as the following quote shows:
Many Witnesses, One Lord (1963), pages 23, 24 by William Barkley writes:
Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, ... When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: ‘James is the man’, then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but, if I say: ‘James is man’, then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos ēn ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, ‘The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God’. ... John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 8:37 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Apothecus, posted 05-03-2010 8:51 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 476 of 492 (558686)
05-03-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Pauline
05-03-2010 12:02 AM


Dr.Sing writes:
John 8:58 (New International Version)
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
this verse was looked at earlier on. I've pointed out the translation of "I AM' is not rendered this way by all translators.
modern translations of John 8:58 writes:
Moffatt: I have existed before Abraham was born.
Schonfield and An American Translation: I existed before Abraham was born.
Stage (German): Before Abraham came to be, I was.
Pfaefflin (German): Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!
George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac Peshitta Before Abraham was born, I was.
Dr.James Murdock, also translating from the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: Before Abraham existed, I was.
The Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of So Paulo says: Before Abraham existed, I was existing.
As you can see the above translators do not agree that Jesus was using the expression found in Exodus. The reason for that is because the words used are completely different. the I Am in exodus is a title and the word is Ehyh
However, in John the expression is I have been which is made up of two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, an haythi
So its not the same expression which is why some translators do not use 'I AM' in their translations.
Dr. Sing writes:
Lk 22: 66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67"If you are the Christ,[d]" they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
This passage shows that Jesus never claimed to be God. His claim was that he was the 'Christ' and the 'Son of God'. Not God himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 12:02 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Pauline, posted 05-04-2010 10:32 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 477 of 492 (558688)
05-03-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Zoinks
05-03-2010 2:14 PM


Zoinks writes:
That peice of scripture reffers to Jesus and god as seperate entities but the same.
Remember water is water, ice is water and steam is water. 3 different parts with diffient functions, but still WATER
perhaps you can explain then why the holy spirit is not also mentioned in John 1:1. If the trinity is 3 in one, why is only Jesus mentioned along with God? Where is the holy spirit, the 3rd person of the trinity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Zoinks, posted 05-03-2010 2:14 PM Zoinks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Pauline, posted 05-04-2010 11:26 AM Peg has replied
 Message 481 by Zoinks, posted 05-04-2010 2:52 PM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024