Jesus/God the same?

quote:

---

your understanding of the term 'Messiah' is limited. From the Hebrew: mashiach, it literally means 'anointed' (smeared with the holy oil of public office). Being mashiach does not necessarily mean that one is king. Priests and saints were also given this title.

---

I see you referred to just half of Strong's definition, the whole definition is- "anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah: --anointed, Messiah." The Messiah or anointed one, was anointed or commissioned for a specific purpose. The Hebrew scriptures contains many prophecies describing the coming of an anointed one who would be a prophet greater than Moses who would be killed and yet rule as king forever, the longed for Messiah.

quote:

---

In the King James Version, mashiach is translated 37 times as "anointed" and only twice, in the book of Daniel, is it transliterated: "Messiah." Talk about manipulation of scripture to support one's preconceived notions!

---

Some translations use "anointed" in Daniel as a matter of a fact. As you have already pointed out messiah and anointed mean pretty much the same thing. As I have mentioned before, translating is not a simple word for word process or else computers would have taken over the job years ago. The context and meaning have to be taken in to consideration in deciding the most appropriate word to use that best expresses the meaning. In the case of the verses in Daniel where "messiah" is used, it is appropriate since those verses are prophecies about the coming of "The Anointed One" or messiah referred to through out the Hebrew scriptures.

quote:

---

We are not told whether Jesus was officially anointed.

---

The anointing of Jesus with holy spirit as Messiah is described at Matthew 3:16 "After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." This was an anointing as is stated at (Luke 4:18) "Jehovah's spirit is upon me, because he anointed" and at (Acts 10:38) "namely, Jesus who was from Nazareth, how God anointed him with holy spirit" So according to scripture Jesus was officially anointed directly by Jehovah, and the event was witnessed by others and recorded in scripture.

quote:

---

Jesus did not become king of Israel as they had expected. Calling him mashiach was at best: Wishful Thinking.

---

Jesus was known to have been anointed as king of Israel. John 12:13 "Save, we pray you! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah's name, even the king of Israel!" Like David after he was anointed, Jesus did not immediately receive his kingship and begin ruling. The people expected him to immediately take power and throw off the Roman rulership, they failed to consider that it was clearly prophesied in the scriptures that the messiah would be 'cut off' that he would die for their sins and that it was at a later time he would begin ruling as king.

quote:

---

On what authority do you reject scriptures which are contained in the popular Bible of Paul's day? Paul clearly took them to be inspired, utilizing them in his gospel ministry; quoting from them . . .

---

The determination of what was inspired; what was part of the Bible and what was not, was based in large part on what was quoted from. If Paul had indeed quoted from books that are not in our Bible today, they would have been included. One of the very reasons such books where excluded is the fact that they are not quoted from by Paul or other Bible writers at all.

quote:

---

Critics who believe that Daniel predicted the arrival of Jesus Christ? In other words ... Christian critics!

---

You don't have to be a Christian to be a critic of christianity, take yourself for example. The messianic prophecies are recognized by non Christians as well, the Jews never accepted Jesus as the Messiah, yet they know what the prophecies point to, which was why they altered them to try to counter Christian arguments.

quote:

---

Where, exactly, is 'the divine name' used in the New Testament? Nowhere, I think

---

Just one of the many problems of using only a KJV, that translation only uses Jehovah only four times and they are all in the OT. But that doesn't mean Jehovah was not used by NT writers, it appears in quite a number of verses. You really need to get a better Bible.

Phatboy<< Yes. Jesus was and is all human and all divine. >>Please explain. Is God the Father and the Holy spirit also all human and all divine? Was Jesus all human and all divine before coming to earth? Also, do you believe a person has to believe Jesus is all human and all divine in order to be saved? Please back up your answers with Scripture.[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-19-2004]

Who better than the Jews to interpret Jewish prophecy?They did not accept Jesus as the Messiah because he was unsuccessful.He did not fulfill the pivotal prophecies. To wit: He did not become King.

quote:

---

Where, exactly, is 'the divine name' used in the New Testament?

---

I study about a dozen English translations, plus the Greek New Testament.Are you not aware that the King James Version always renders their translations of YHWH in caps? Like this: "the LORD." You can't miss it. It nearly jumps off the page.There is really no problem identifying where the tetragrammaton would appear in the original script but it doesn't appear in New Testament. If it did, the KJV translators would doubtless have rendered it as: "the LORD." Where? Exactly. I don't need "a better Bible."But I know someone who does!

quote:

---

On what authority do you reject scriptures which are contained in the popular Bible of Paul's day? Paul clearly took them to be inspired, utilizing them in his gospel ministry; quoting from them . . .

---

I hope you truly believe that. I want you to know that I enjoy our banter, even though it is not always pleasant. It is not my wish to discourage your personal quest for truth. It is not you but the organization you represent which I find offensive. That said, I think you should be aware that laymen of any organization are seldom privy to information which that body's Bible scholars have at their fingertips. And I must, in the interest of your quest for truth, share a bit of that privileged information which you are not going to like. It may taste bitter to you at first, but it can become sweet if you allow it.The fact is simply this: All New Testament writers quote from the 'Apocrypha.'Here is a partial list of 'apocryphal' scriptures Paul quoted, along with their New Testament locations: He also quoted pagan authors whose words have now become part of the Bible: Documentation and further reasoning located here: InspirationI don't take much personal interest in some of those books but Paul evidently found them them "useful."Hope you can assimilate this fact without losing your enthusiasm for these revealing ancient documents.BTW: None of the NT writers quote Song of Solomon! But they do quote from the 'apocrphal' Psalms of Solomon.db

Unofficially, in the minds of his admirers, sure. But anointing alone does not make him king. Anointing must be followed by crowning. Even after Saul was anointed to be king, he had to win popular support. The people did not crown him until he had proven himself in battle. You can say that God anointed Jesus to be king but that is only the first step. Fact is: he was never crowned. The Romans wouldn't allow it. The Jewish government wouldn't allow it. Jesus and his followers rebelled against both governments. That was the key to his downfall. Many messiah's were cut off. The people only remembered that particular prophecy when they realized that all the other prophecies were wrong. More rationalization on their part. They saw in the prophecies what they wanted to believe; much the same as people do now.Take for example the oft quoted passage from Isaiah, purportedly a prophecy of the Messiah and probably the only place we are going to find a suggestion that the messiah will die for someones sin:

quote:

---

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. ... And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief, when he makes himself an offering for sin, ... Isaiah 53:7-10

---

Odd, isn't it? No one ever finishes reading the tenth verse. They skipt it. They cut it off in mid sentence. If they were to the last part of the sentence, they might not convince us that this is talking about Jesus. Here is the last part of verse ten:

quote:

---

... he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

---

This entire chapter is supposed to be about Jesus, but could apply to any starcrossed king of Israel.And besides: What is all the hoorah about Jesus forgiving sin? Kings and Presidents do it all the time. Jehovah did it before Israel became a nation. Heck, even you and I do it. Or should.Jesus died for his own sin. The sin of threatening his government. He died for those who had joined his rebellion. {although they were eventually hunted down and punished individually.} And I could die for my sin, if old age doesn't get me first.Be Here Now. I'm OK; You're OK (well, you're so, so). Are you equating the Holy Spirit with the Oil of Anointing? Interesting thought! Well, there goes that theory! Please note that Jesus is quoting Isaiah (61:1). Again the notion of equivalence between Holy Spirit and Holy Oil. You may be onto something.

Doctrbill writes: This is the crux of an argument brewing in todays Supreme Court. One side seems to think that Government is the highest source of law and truth. The other side believes that God gave government its source for law. It all boils down to my argument on the two sources of wisdom, as defined:
1) God exists. By Faith in a higher external source.
Or...for the alternative view,
2) Human intellect and wisdom is the source.
This argument between God and Government was eloquently expressed between Jesus and the Roman authority Pontius Pilate: [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-20-2004]

Greetings,wmscott wrote :

quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of God" Paul here referring to all the writings at that time that were considered inspired by the Christian congregation.

---

It never ceases to amaze me that apologists quote this passage as proof of the truth in scriptures, when this letter was FORGED by someone else in Paul's name perhaps as much as a century afterwards.How can the words of a LIAR be taken to prove anything?Iasion

Doctrbill,In the discussion with Wmscott, we have: to which you reply, But Wmscott's words do not seem insulting to me. More a warning. Holmes reminds all of those he debates with of a similar truth, how foolish it is to close your mind to reason and counsel. Isn't it affirmed in Scripture, that a free will choice to remain foolish, so common in humans it qualifies as original sin, trumps understanding?So, we are concerned at your failure to appreciate this argument, that critics were at first so embarassed by the fit between prophesy and history that they concluded it had to be a fraud. But when it was proved not to be a fraud, they overcame their embarassment, and began to pick apart the fit. Now, that's, what's :ae: call it? Disingenuous? I've been reading your posts, and was a bit surprized at this response. I expected something better.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-20-2004]

Indeed.Question is: Who determines what is and is not the wisdom of God?Whomever decides, he will always be opposed by someone equally convinced of his own inspiration. Whatever his 'truth' someone else will have an opposing version of it. This lesson is taught by history and is the nature of human nature. Show me your god's truth and I'll show you my God's righteous machine gun!If one assumes that the Bible reveals God's law, he gets himself into a sticky mess. There has never been satisfactory agreement on that question, not even among the Jews (whence we get the idea in the first place). Some say Jesus changed God's law. Some say he ammended it. Some say he 'fulfilled' it (whatever they mean by that).I say, God's law is primal and inherent within the creation. i.e. The law of nature is the law of God. Anything more mundane is the invention of man."Don't wear blended fabrics.""Don't eat pigs.""Cut off your foreskin.""Don't work on Saturday."You know the drill.There are only two commandments, given by God (nature) to all life-forms. On these two hang all the human laws and prophecies.
{Thus saith the Lord Doctrbill. Bless his name. Amen}db

Stephen,
Our previous contacts have been amicable and I do not wish to offend you but I am surprised that you do not perceive wmscott's response in the spirit it was intended. Let me turn it around then and pretend to chastize you for failing to understand the school of criticism which I espouse. Let us assume that I have tried repeatedly to explain my point of view but you still disagree. Now you can see why I don't try to explain deeper things to you, you ether don't have much comprehension or more likely you just don't want to.Who is mr. scott to judge my intelligence and motive? Insulting me, and others here, seems to come easy for him; so easy that he probably doesn't realize how offensive it is. I am sorry if you do not see it. And more sorry that you choose to throw salt in the wound with your own thinly veiled echo of his sentiment:

quote:

---

a free will choice to remain foolish, ... trumps understanding

---

db[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 01-20-2004]

Doctrbill,You ask, The rules written in scripture for making this decision are fairly clear.First, no private interpretation. We live by what proceeds out of the mouth of God. If you are not willing to say, "I asked God, and He told me from His mouth that ...." you don't get to play.Second, you only hear in part, through a glass darkly. You have to assume that someone else has part of the picture, and nobody does anything about what you see as wisdom until this part is included.Third, what you say needs to be judged ("Let the others judge.") by others hearing words from the mouth of God.Fourth, you need to be willing to ask the voice speaking to you to speak about Yeshua, about whether or not He walked on the earth in the flesh, etc. Test the spirits.Fifth, anyone can participate in this prophetic forum.Sixth, the witness of scripture to whatever is heard in the Spirit can and should be sought, before action.Seventh, the wisdom found ought to produce good fruit, love, joy, peace, etc."Anyone who says they know God, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."Good living!Stephen

Thanks for your compliment on my post. I could have included te Devil and just two t.v.s but I was trying to be as simplistic as possible so that the reader would get the general idea of what may be going on rather than teaching them theology; which should follow once you understand the concept. Did you notice, even with my simplistic analogy that the Trinity popped out? I notice many individuals in this forum have questions about the Trinity. I have a way to explain it in a simple form too. Check it out and give me suggestions.

Quote: But Ned, in order to substantiate the veracity and accuracy of the Bible, forums like this and Faith and Belief within EvC provide the avenue to go on for that. If the Bible, for example, is not consistent and sensible on matters of the trinity, it's gona be hard to argue for it's creation story.You make a point, however, it is not a valid point. The creation and the Trinity are mutually exclusive. Now, if you are trying to say "How can we trust one part of the Bible if another part is wrong?" Then here is an answer. Many history books claim Columbus discovered the Americas however we know differently. Does this mean the rest of the book is in error? Here is a more intruiging question:
How can the bible, with its many authors (around 70) from many walks of life and written and compiled over centuries of time can possible have been so much in agreement in matters of theme and form? Think about it. Get seventy people together and ask them to each write a different chapter for a book you are going to compile. They may not know what the others are writing. What are the chances that once compiled your book has a unifying theme?