QUESTION 1 for YOU - IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD

[Floyd]

The context is about who Jesus is claiming He is, not your queries to setup your false dichotomy.
Jesus' purpose was clear before He was born. The Word knew that and God knew that. Jesus, as the hypostatic amalgam of God and man, knew that. He also knew that those He addressed did not know Him because they did not know God. It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda what the Jews knew what He was saying, and yet they continued to equivocate, knowing He wasn't a Samaritan nor demon possessed.
Jesus did not return equivocation and prevarication with the same, and even though they knew what He was claiming, they would not acknowledge the truth of who He WAS, and equivocated some more. John 1:10-13 is the synopsis of this scenario.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Jesus always knew what to say and how they would react. He knew what His words would be before time began as He knew what the arguments and protestations of those He spoke to would be. He knew would not receive Him. Not because Jesus exited before Abraham, but because the WORD did, and Jesus was the WORD incarnate. As you don't accept what the NT says about Jesus and His hypostatic nature, you will never understand it. As Paul teaches in Rom 10:17; Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Remember stan that Purity refuses to answer questions on his own teaching; but expects every body else to answer his!


Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

If only you had 39 books to support your notions but you haven't one.

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

Im sorry but I don’t see how "I am he" does anything to credit Jhn8:56 with the sheer outrage they experience in Jhn8:57. It seems to do very little in clarifying his divinity, the question would still come "He who?" I fail to see why the questioning would stop there in outrage.
It would prompt the Jews to ask him to clarify his statement.
And then they tear their clothes and pick up stones.

"I am" is a direct and deliberate identification and is very obviously a direct referral to the “I am” of exodus and cause for them to call him out for blasphemy instantly, after all that’s what he was killed for. They were trying to pin something on him, but some magician calling them names and calling himself the coming Messiah would not be enough.

"I am he" Is a flimsy statement and holds little confirmation, if it were "I am he" then Jesus's true identity would soon be called in to question and more so today.
It would only serve to irritate them if anything at all.
As for calling them children of the devil and so on being the fuel to the fire, he was not the first to do it and live.
John the Baptist had no problem calling them out.
(Matthew 3:7) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”
Remember it wasn’t the Pharisees who had his head cut off.

During the entirety of Jesus's ministry he refers to himself as being one with the Father, he performs great miracles right in front of them and calls them out on all their shenanigans, and all the while they plot to kill him, they just need the one statement from him to put him away for good and it certainly will need to be something condemning, and what more condemning then the direct referral to himself in the oneness he has been talking about since the day he began preaching.

Moses was told to go and set Gods people free, and when Moses asks who shall I say sends me God says tell them “I am who I am.” Tell them that “I am” sends you.
It will be the great “I am” who will set the people free.
Jesus here is on the verge of setting his people free, and when the “Pharaohs” of the Old law badger him as to his Authority, comes the echo from past, Jesus stands before them and exclaims “I am.”

This is a direct slap in the face, it is purposeful = purposely referring to the "I am" of Scripture, historical Scripture they know better than any man and they know the story of Moses back to front and inside out and they understand the impact of this most sacred of names.
It is confronting = They are face to face with a man referring to himself as not just a divinity but God himself, the one they profess as their God.
Convicting = They are the ones God is setting his people free from, out with the old and in with the new. their ways have been judged and they have been found wanting.

This is what sends them in to a frenzy, this is what gets Jesus nailed to a cross.

Dress up "I am he" all you like, compared to relevance of "I am" especially at this particular moment of extreme pivotal importance is insulting and demeaning.

I don't think you get it, madad. "I am" has nothing to CORRELATE to in Exodus 3. HO OWN is the Septuagint correlation. Is 'ego eimi' HO OWN??

The context is about who Jesus is claiming He is, not your queries to setup your false dichotomy.
Jesus' purpose was clear before He was born. The Word knew that and God knew that. Jesus, as the hypostatic amalgam of God and man, knew that. He also knew that those He addressed did not know Him because they did not know God. It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda what the Jews knew what He was saying, and yet they continued to equivocate, knowing He wasn't a Samaritan nor demon possessed.
Jesus did not return equivocation and prevarication with the same, and even though they knew what He was claiming, they would not acknowledge the truth of who He WAS, and equivocated some more. John 1:10-13 is the synopsis of this scenario.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Jesus always knew what to say and how they would react. He knew what His words would be before time began as He knew what the arguments and protestations of those He spoke to would be. He knew would not receive Him. Not because Jesus exited before Abraham, but because the WORD did, and Jesus was the WORD incarnate. As you don't accept what the NT says about Jesus and His hypostatic nature, you will never understand it. As Paul teaches in Rom 10:17; Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Funny you got Christ knowin' all these things, he did NOT know:

1) When he would come back
2) Who would sit at his left and right hands
3) Who touched his hem

And in three synoptics it was OBVIOUS midway through his ministry NONE knew him as God. "What sort of MAN is this...that calms the winds and the seas?

So then you demean the DISCIPLES as you demean us, having NO HOLY SPIRIT are we...I mean are ye...

 

[Floyd]

I don't think you get it, madad. "I am" has nothing to CORRELATE to in Exodus 3. HO OWN is the Septuagint correlation. Is 'ego eimi' HO OWN??


Funny you got Christ knowin' all these things, he did NOT know:

1) When he would come back
2) Who would sit at his left and right hands
3) Who touched his hem

And in three synoptics it was OBVIOUS midway through his ministry NONE knew him as God. "What sort of MAN is this...that calms the winds and the seas?

So then you demean the DISCIPLES as you demean us, having NO HOLY SPIRIT are we...I mean are ye...

Nothead; can't you read?
It's there for all to see!
Madad has(and others) pointed it out to you; why don't you study properly, instead of wasting our time?
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

In order for me to have come up with my conclusions, of course I had to wonder if it was conceivable, im not mindless bud.
But look at just about anything Christ said and then try and imagine that he meant something slightly different, is it conceivable?
Of course, the translation can be played with and manipulated to say or imply any number of ideas, its all subjective.

Thank you for being civil!

Its all subjective - correct....and that's the point isn't it? Do we introduce external thoughts to the subject which is at hand. Let me explain.

Context again: John 8:56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed152 to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”153

Translators comment:

152 greatly overjoyed.
153 What is the meaning of Jesus’ statement that the patriarch Abraham “saw” his day and rejoiced? The use of past tenses would seem to refer to something that occurred during the patriarch’s lifetime.

What is subjective?

1. I could say to you "Abraham saw Jesus in the future as some vision from God"
2. I could say Abraham was transported into Jesus' time to see his day
3. I could say Abraham experienced certain circumstance in his life which revealed to him that a sacrifice would be provided for by God in that day. Gen 22:13–15

The question we must ask is in what way could Jesus say:

8:57 Then the Judeans154 replied,155 “You are not yet fifty years old!156 Have157 you seen Abraham?” 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,158 before Abraham came into existence,159 I am!”160

Are you inferring upon Jesus thoughts which were not his intention?
In what way could Jesus claimed he pre-existed before Abraham? (in Yahwehs purpose?)
What Scripture would teach us of Christ before Abraham? Gen 3:15 (seed of the woman)

You see if you were honest I suggest from points 1-3 above you would chose number 3? Yahweh walked with Abraham and Abraham walked with his God - God allowed Abraham to experience a promised Son as a Father sees it - correct?

We know that "Abraham saw Jesus day", ie in vision, prophecy, etc. Thus Christ existed in Abraham's day, in prospect and purpose....this is the context to which Jesus is speaking.

Christ establishes here in John 8 preeminence, not preexistence.

Abraham saw the day of Christ, marked out from the world's beginnings (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8). As the son and heir, Jesus' power and authority preceded that of Abraham.

So in terms of saying all is subjective we need to determine with honesty the subject.

In this text I see no place for pre-existence; the Judeans unreasonably inferred Jesus was teaching "he was God" but rather his life and purpose was greater with pre-eminence prescribe by his Heavenly Father, which they, the people were not willing to except.

In the end he proved the people did not have the prophetic vision to "see" the Son of God as he stood before them (As Abraham had done by faith) - rather wanting to make him something he was not they took up stones to kill him.

The irony here of course some 2000 years Christians desire to make him something he is not and thereby also miss the promised Son of David.

P.

 

[Floyd]

Thank you for being civil!

Its all subjective - correct....and that's the point isn't it? Do we introduce external thoughts to the subject which is at hand. Let me explain.

Context again: John 8:56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed152 to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”153

Translators comment:

152 greatly overjoyed.
153 What is the meaning of Jesus’ statement that the patriarch Abraham “saw” his day and rejoiced? The use of past tenses would seem to refer to something that occurred during the patriarch’s lifetime.

What is subjective?

1. I could say to you "Abraham saw Jesus in the future as some vision from God"
2. I could say Abraham was transported into Jesus' time to see his day
3. I could say Abraham experienced certain circumstance in his life which revealed to him that a sacrifice would be provided for by God in that day. Gen 22:13–15

The question we must ask is in what way could Jesus say:

8:57 Then the Judeans154 replied,155 “You are not yet fifty years old!156 Have157 you seen Abraham?” 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,158 before Abraham came into existence,159 I am!”160

Are you inferring upon Jesus thoughts which were not his intention?
In what way could Jesus claimed he pre-existed before Abraham? (in Yahwehs purpose?)
What Scripture would teach us of Christ before Abraham? Gen 3:15 (seed of the woman)

You see if you were honest I suggest from points 1-3 above you would chose number 3? Yahweh walked with Abraham and Abraham walked with his God - God allowed Abraham to experience a promised Son as a Father sees it - correct?

We know that "Abraham saw Jesus day", ie in vision, prophecy, etc. Thus Christ existed in Abraham's day, in prospect and purpose....this is the context to which Jesus is speaking.

Christ establishes here in John 8 preeminence, not preexistence.

Abraham saw the day of Christ, marked out from the world's beginnings (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8). As the son and heir, Jesus' power and authority preceded that of Abraham.

So in terms of saying all is subjective we need to determine with honesty the subject.

In this text I see no place for pre-existence; the Judeans unreasonably inferred Jesus was teaching "he was God" but rather his life and purpose was greater with pre-eminence prescribe by his Heavenly Father, which they, the people were not willing to except.

In the end he proved the people did not have the prophetic vision to "see" the Son of God as he stood before them (As Abraham had done by faith) - rather wanting to make him something he was not they took up stones to kill him.

The irony here of course some 2000 years Christians desire to make him something he is not and thereby also miss the promised Son of David.

P.

You put a lot of effort into this reply; but would not reply to my simple questions on your own teachings?
I repeat:


Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

If only you had 39 books to support your notions but you haven't one.

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

If you want to remain credible with this Board; you can't just refuse to answer when it suits you!
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

You put a lot of effort into this reply;

Lets hope Floyd the interpretation has not been lost and his words have not fallen to the ground. I always hope that a quiet reader on the Word is in the back ground treasuring up the gems which are hidden in Christ Jesus. Col 2:3

 

[Floyd]

Lets hope Floyd the interpretation has not been lost and his words have not fallen to the ground. I always hope that a quiet reader on the Word is in the back ground treasuring up the gems which are hidden in Christ Jesus. Col 2:3

Why are you so devious?

Please answer my points on your teachings!
Floyd.


Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

If only you had 39 books to support your notions but you haven't one.

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

Nothead; can't you read?
It's there for all to see!
Madad has(and others) pointed it out to you; why don't you study properly, instead of wasting our time?
Floyd.

What is there for all to see?

 

[Floyd]

What is there for all to see?

Interesting; you don't see!
Floyd.

 

[shturt678]

Thank you folks for caring again!

I think what we need to see Jesus' pre-existence, as God's Son looooong before He was the Messiah - co-equal as the second Person of the Godhead. God, the "Son of God" as defined in Matt.22:42, etc.

Old Jack

 

[nothead]

Thank you folks for caring again!

I think what we need to see Jesus' pre-existence, as God's Son looooong before He was the Messiah - co-equal as the second Person of the Godhead. God, the "Son of God" as defined in Matt.22:42, etc.

Old Jack

Two Gods in Heaven Theology is kinda weird, sir. Daniel Boyarin might not think so, but then again he is kinda weird, sir. Ain't weird to weird theologians of mainline bent.

Weird to true monotheists, sir.

 

[Floyd]

Thank you folks for caring again!

I think what we need to see Jesus' pre-existence, as God's Son looooong before He was the Messiah - co-equal as the second Person of the Godhead. God, the "Son of God" as defined in Matt.22:42, etc.

Old Jack

Well said Jack!!!
Floyd.

Thank you folks for caring again!

I think what we need to see Jesus' pre-existence, as God's Son looooong before He was the Messiah - co-equal as the second Person of the Godhead. God, the "Son of God" as defined in Matt.22:42, etc.

Old Jack

Well said Jack!!!
Floyd.

 

[Nomad]

Why do you believe Jesus is God, when you can read
word for word in the Book of Numbers,

Chapter 23, 19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,
and shall he not make it good?

I'm late to this thread and there's too many posts to look at so forgive me if someone has already said what I'm about to say. The proof text in question has been horribly misread and says absolutely nothing regarding the possibility or impossibility of God becoming flesh, (hypostatic union), and dwelling among us as the Apostle John so clearly teaches.

If Numbers 23:19 said "God is not a man" and then stopped, Findingmyfaith1 might have a possible argument. But it doesn't stop there. It says, God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." The point is clear. God is 100% trustworthy, unlike sinful man. The rest of our text says as much, "hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Mistakes like this can be avoided if we make sure that we're reading our proof texts all the way through and in context. Grabbing on to part of a verse without considering the whole verse and its surrounding context is always a recipe for misunderstanding the original intent of the author. That is exactly what has happened here.

 

[nothead]

I'm late to this thread and there's too many posts to look at so forgive me if someone has already said what I'm about to say. The proof text in question has been horribly misread and says absolutely nothing regarding the possibility or impossibility of God becoming flesh, (hypostatic union), and dwelling among us as the Apostle John so clearly teaches.

If Numbers 23:19 said "God is not a man" and then stopped, Findingmyfaith1 might have a possible argument. But it doesn't stop there. It says, God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." The point is clear. God is 100% trustworthy, unlike sinful man. The rest of our text says as much, "hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Mistakes like this can be avoided if we make sure that we're reading our proof texts all the way through and in context. Grabbing on to part of a verse without considering the whole verse and its surrounding context is always a recipe for misunderstanding the original intent of the author. That is exactly what has happened here.

I'm late to this thread and there's too many posts to look at so forgive me if someone has already said what I'm about to say. The proof text in question has been horribly misread and says absolutely nothing regarding the possibility or impossibility of God becoming flesh, (hypostatic union), and dwelling among us as the Apostle John so clearly teaches.

If Numbers 23:19 said "God is not a man" and then stopped, Findingmyfaith1 might have a possible argument. But it doesn't stop there. It says, God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." The point is clear. God is 100% trustworthy, unlike sinful man. The rest of our text says as much, "hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Mistakes like this can be avoided if we make sure that we're reading our proof texts all the way through and in context. Grabbing on to part of a verse without considering the whole verse and its surrounding context is always a recipe for misunderstanding the original intent of the author. That is exactly what has happened here.

Or on the other hand it may mean exactly what he thought it meant. And we can consider the WHOLE VERSE and come to the very same conclusion: God is not a man, never was a man, and never will be a man.

WHOO HOO!! Slimier heads have prevailed, but not handsomer ones like NOTHEAD's head. (And I got a full head of hair, too).

 

[Floyd]

Or on the other hand it may mean exactly what he thought it meant. And we can consider the WHOLE VERSE and come to the very same conclusion: God is not a man, never was a man, and never will be a man.

WHOO HOO!! Slimier heads have prevailed, but not handsomer ones like NOTHEAD's head. (And I got a full head of hair, too).

As you will have seen Nomad; this thing has descended badly!
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

As you will have seen Nomad; this thing has descended badly!
Floyd.

I will have seen more descended than you, sir. Just don't call me "gonad." Oh there he is, lurking. Maybe he will say something, not so condescending.

Well said Jack!!!
Floyd.


Well said Jack!!!
Floyd.

Well said Jack!!!
Floyd.


Well said Jack!!!
Floyd.

Funny God, the Son of God was never said in scripture, OR "God the Son." Ever. Never. Not once. Not even .5 of a time. .02 of a time. .0009 of a time.

 

[Nomad]

As you will have seen Nomad; this thing has descended badly!
Floyd.

This is true. But it's like this on every message board. Insults and bad behavior begin to fly when error is exposed. I'm used to it. lol

 

[nothead]

This is true. But it's like this on every message board. Insults and bad behavior begin to fly when error is exposed. I'm used to it. lol

Error is exposed? Where? Did a Calvinist open his yap? Why?

Oh YOU nomad. Listen up, so we know your opinion about the verse God is not a man that he should lie.

But do you really have any REASON to believe your terp is terpedly better than the terps of the righteous?

 

[StanJ]

In other words you do not understand the context like you first thought - gotcha!

Apparently you need to equivocate ALL the time. It's is not surprising given who your Spiritual Father is.

Agreed - the Logos (mind) of God always understood the New Creation in Christ Jesus - the Son, like the New creation was by promise - not in existence only in the Mind of God.

Wrong again. Logos is WORD and the WORD is GOD. The WORD became flesh (Jesus) and dwelled among us. You find Him in Rev 19:13.

Here is his claim: John 8:36 "Son"

LOL...yeh His claim in the second person. Who was making that claim?

 

[nothead]

Apparently you need to equivocate ALL the time. It's is not surprising given who your Spiritual Father is.

Wrong again. Logos is WORD and the WORD is GOD. The WORD became flesh (Jesus) and dwelled among us. You find Him in Rev 19:13.

Cannot be because Jesus holistically and exhaustively the WORD means he cannot HAVE the WORD of God in his mouth since he IS THE WORD. Sir. Plain common sense.