No one has seen God at any time, John?

[Matthias]

Jesus (the Word) did however seal a portion for due season well beyond His theology as presented during that time of His first appearing.

In Jewish monotheism, the Messiah consistently acts within the constraints of his theology at all times.

 

[dak]

I believe they are all missing the fact that in Joseph’s first Vision with the Angel, Joseph misunderstood….. that’s why the second vision came.

The first is expounded in the parable of the sower: people neither understand how it applies nor would likely believe it. That one was in the days of Herod. The second, the one who actually opened the womb, (a literal physical birth), happened during the census of Quirinius in 6-7AD. People in this case also neither understand nor believe "Luke" when he places that birth in 6-7AD. Yoseph and Maryah were, at the first, born from above, (the seed is the Logos and this is found in the Protoevangelium of Yakob (a.k.a. James)), then they had her firstborn physical child who would become the Meshiah through the seed line of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:3 which you quoted earlier).

The one and only one-of-a-kind Son who is ever-always in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18), has no beginning, no end, and no genealogy, (He is the Logos), just as Melki-Tzedek has no beginning, no end, and no genealogy, (somebody long ago has done some tinkering with genealogies, to say the least).

 

[ScottA]

You’re mistaken about my position on the matter. I’m on record acknowledging that trinitarianism is a form of monotheism. I know that you aren’t interested in confirming that I have but anyone who is can search my posts and see for themselves that I have.

Okay, good!

 

[ScottA]

I assert that God is in Messiah.

No.

I got that--that Messiah is perhaps just a man filled with the spirit of God--from what you said above. Yet, the real issue is that you do not consider Jesus God. If that is not your position, please clarify.

 

[Matthias]

I got that--that Messiah is perhaps just a man filled with the spirit of God--from what you said above. Yet, the real issue is that you do not consider Jesus God. If that is not your position, please clarify.

Jesus is God within the constraints of Jewish monotheism.

 

[ScottA]

I haven’t misunderstood you. I also haven’t been persuaded that the Messiah’s Jewish monotheism is against God and the scriptures.

How is it that you do not understand that Messiah was the Last under that failed theology--not failed because of believing that God is One, but because they did not believe He was God with us--and He took up the cross to save them from what they did not know? (Scripture italicized)

 

[ScottA]

Jesus is God within the constraints of Jewish monotheism.

Ahh, perhaps we're getting somewhere!

I understand the constraints. What I don't understand is how you could jump in in the midst of those constraints and hold to a belief that was also under constraint--like after those days, there was no tomorrow, no third day? Much of what was true, still is true (of course)--but why bring forward, as with a time machine, and preach every detail including some of what was under restraint and only accurate for and during those days?

Shouldn't you say rather that Jesus was not God during those days, but was before the foundation of the world and now is God?

 

[Matthias]

How is it that you do not understand that Messiah was the Last under that failed theology--

He isn’t the last and it isn’t a failed theology.

… not failed because of believing that God is One, but because they did not believe He was God with us--and He took up the cross to save them from what they did not know? (Scripture italicized)

How is it that you continue not to recognize and acknowledge that while the majority of his fellow Jewish monotheists didn’t recognize and acknowledge it a minority of his fellow Jewish monotheists did recognize and acknowledge it?

I’m a 1st century Jewish monotheist living in the 21st century and I recognize and acknowledge it.

 

[Matthias]

Ahh, perhaps we're getting somewhere!

I understand the constraints. What I don't understand is how you could jump in in the midst of those constraints and hold to a belief that was also under constraint--like after those days, there was no tomorrow, no third day? Much of what was true, still is true (of course)--but why bring forward, as with a time machine, and preach every detail including some of what was under restraint and only accurate for and during days?

Shouldn't you say rather that Jesus was not God, but was before the foundation of the world and now is God?

No. I’m not going to say something is true which I don’t believe is true.

 

[ScottA]

He isn’t the last and it isn’t a failed theology.

Jesus was indeed the Last under the old covenant which by the law did fail to save any.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus was indeed the Last under the old covenant which by the law did fail to save any.

Jewish monotheism isn’t the Old Covenant. The God of the Hebrew Bible is the God of the New Testament. Jewish monotheism is the theology of both.

 

[ScottA]

How is it that you continue not to recognize and acknowledge that while the majority of his fellow Jewish monotheists didn’t recognize and acknowledge it a minority of his fellow Jewish monotheists did recognize and acknowledge it?

That is not an accurate depiction of what has occurred.

The few that you refer to who did believe--did not believe in monotheism per se--but more importantly believed rather that Christ was God with us, against what they were taught...and died for believing what their fellow monotheists would not believe.

See! Your house is left to you desolate.

 

[Matthias]

That is not an accurate depiction of what has occurred.

The few that you refer to who did believe--did not believe in monotheism per se--but more importantly believed rather that Christ was God with us, against what they were taught...and died for believing what their fellow monotheists would not believe.

See! Your house is left to you desolate.

Every single one of them believed in strict monotheism. And there were many more than just a few.

 

[dak]

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
— John 1:17

To me this is John stating that the law of Moses wasn’t given from God the Father.

Misreading οτι, inserting "but" when it is not there, and misinterpreting δια twice:

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

17 οτι ο νομος δια μωυσεως εδοθη η χαρις και η αληθεια δια Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ εγενετο

Because the Torah was given through Mosheh; the grace and the truth came to be through Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ

I understand that translators do such things due to an antinomian bias: do you understand that?

 

[Waiting on him]

Misreading οτι, inserting "but" when it is not there, and misinterpreting δια twice:

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

17 οτι ο νομος δια μωυσεως εδοθη η χαρις και η αληθεια δια Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ εγενετο

Because the Torah was given through Mosheh; the grace and the truth came to be through Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ

I understand that translators do such things due to an antinomian bias: do you understand that?

Yes, I do understand. If there was no Grace or truth in the law then it wasn’t from God.

 

[ScottA]

Jewish monotheism isn’t the Old Covenant. The God of the Hebrew Bible is the God of the New Testament. Jewish monotheism is the theology of both.

After all this, what are you saying, that monotheists believe Jesus is God (Emmanuel, God with us "the God of the New Testament")?

 

[Matthias]

After all this, what are you saying, that monotheists believe Jesus is God (Emmanuel, God with us "the God of the New Testament")?

I’m saying this:

“1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. Belief in the one, only, and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of Christian tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Jud. his own and expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5; see Mk. 12:29-30; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27). This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenants. The God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts 13:17), and the God of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).”

(New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Abridged Edition, p. 244)

That’s the God of Jewish monotheism. That’s the God of primitive Christianity. That’s my God.

 

[dak]

Yes, I do understand. If there was no Grace or truth in the law then it wasn’t from God.

So the god of this world prophesied the coming of your god? Uh, okay.

 

[ScottA]

I’m saying this:

“1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. Belief in the one, only, and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of Christian tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Jud. his own and expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5; see Mk. 12:29-30; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27). This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenants. The God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts 13:17), and the God of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).”

(New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Abridged Edition, p. 244)

That’s the God of Jewish monotheism. That’s the God of primitive Christianity. That’s my God.

Good--that's excellent! And I am here to tell you that Jesus is that God--for He defines God--with the exception and the reason Jesus said what He said calling the Father His God, is that an "image"--that God created man as--is no God...which is also true of us as well.

The dilemma and confusion comes when the image of God in man is given its own identity during and of this world. In other words logos (Word) is rather a form of media from God...complete with a cast of characters. But is no more God than a newspaper or a book is the actual events contained and revealed therein. And we too in the flesh are only logos (word) as well.

 

[Matthias]

Good--that's excellent! And I am here to tell you that Jesus is that God--for He defines God--with the exception and the reason Jesus said what He said calling the Father His God, is that an "image"--that God created man as--is no God...which is also true of us as well.

Thank you for telling me but I don’t find your explanation persuasive. Jesus, a Jewish monotheist, isn’t his own God and Father.

The dilemma and confusion comes when the image of God in man is given its own identity during and of this world. In other words logos (Word) is rather a form of media from God...complete with a cast of characters. But is no more God than a newspaper or a book is the actual events contained and revealed therein. And we too in the flesh are only logos (word) as well.