Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[Angelina]

No insults allowed.

This rule will be strictly enforced. This community has a core set of beliefs that we clearly state at multiple locations on this website. However, we recognize that unity is Christ is the ultimate aim and this can be achieved even when there is disagreement on doctrinal issues. A good way to avoid this issue is to focus on the doctrine and not the person. This, of course, includes any kind of insults based on race or beliefs.

Bless you too honey...

 

[Amazing Grace]

BTW whoever these people you've encourntered before they are not me. So don't dump on me what your bitter fued you have had with someone else about a topic I have not even etertained or mentioned.

How insane to pushnish someone for something they have not said? Weird. :unsure:

At least you can have the decency to wait until I say something controversial instead of just attacking me on something you made up in your own head. :blink:

:blink:

At least I didn't accuse you of things I thought you were going to say because that is what I've experienced in the past with someone else.

 

[Angelina]

No one is attacking you Grace...you have a different opinion re: the olive tree than I do...that is just fine...we will agree to disagree on this matter. Yes I have been down this road before and no I am not attacking you at all but establishing what I believe based on that past situation...

BTW...calling me names is not going make me agree with your position ..it only causes division where there really isn't any. Just a difference of opinion...


Shalom/ Peace!

 

[Amazing Grace]

You have accused me of going down some strange path of some arguments or debates you have had with other people. Your words below from post #200

...because dear Grace...

I have been down this road before. Firstly - Israel is the tree and we are supported by Israel, then it goes to - Since we are supported by Israel, we should be following the Torah...then to - we should as believers, be observing the feasts and keeping the sabbath days. That is why...

You blatantly accused me of something I did not say. That is what this is about. You choose to attach to me something I have not said. I didn't say anything about following Judasim in any of my posts. You think being accused of something I do not adhere to or believe is fine with me. It is the same as insulting me. What you said was a false accusation and equal to being slander.

If you believe the Church is now Israel today, which is replacement theology yes we do not agree. Israel is still Israel and the Church is the Body of Christ made up of Saved Believers both Jewish and Gentile.

You know I will cool off and get over it. However you shouldn't put words into other people's mouths and think it's all rosy cool.

 

[aspen]

I agree that the Jewish people played an important role in the foundation of the Christian Church. I also totally disagree with replacement theology. I think God still loves Israel - He is faithful.

 

[Angelina]

Ohh...I thought it was about the fact that we all need to take a chill pill because we do not agree with your synopsis

You all need to take a chill pill people.

Do the Branches hold up the Trunk of a Tree or the Other way around?

You are all a bit uptight here. Why don't you take the plank out of your eyes before you take a speck out of mine.

I explained to Angelina

I was simply talking physically. Physically Christians are igrafted into the TRUNK which is Isreal.

Paul doesn't say in that passage that God makes a new hybred tree from the two trees does he?

You have accused me of going down some strange path of some arguments or debates you have had with other people. Your words below
...because dear Grace...

I have been down this road before. Firstly - Israel is the tree and we are supported by Israel, then it goes to - Since we are supported by Israel, we should be following the Torah...then to - we should as believers, be observing the feasts and keeping the sabbath days. That is why.

no...I hadn't, I said...I have been down this road before and this has been the outcome of it. That is why I hold my ground regarding the olive tree parable...

If you believe the Church is now Israel today, which is replacement theology yes we do not agree. Israel is still Israel and the Church is the Body of Christ made up of Saved Believers both Jewish and Gentile.

I did not say that the Church is now Israel today ....:huh:

However you shouldn't put words into other people's mouths and think it's all rosy cool.

now who is putting words into whose mouth? this is so childish...

Bless you!

 

[belantos]

You have truely been filled to the brim with heretical teaching. The one thing that is illustrated from the passage, Let ¨us¨ make man in ¨our¨ image though the New Testament is that God is the One Triune God. Can I explain this to anyone? Certainly not, I am a Finite man and my LORD is the Infinite God and how could the finite ever be so cocky as to pretend to be able to define the Infinite Creator he, or she, has never even seen? The Bible is the Word of God, preserved by God through the use of the men He inspired to write as well as the men He inspired to translate and to preserve it. On this truth I stand and because of this truth I may never be able to explain the trinity but I can grasp it and hold it up for the world to see, for those that have eyes to see, and know that it is true because God, your Creator, said so!

The one who doesn't belong to another religion is always a heretic to that other religion. In the same was the members of that other religion are also heretics to this religion. It is relative.

The passage "Let us" has been dealt with already, so I just point you to the NIV Study Bible footnotes. God announces His intention to create man in His heavenly court. Enjoy!

The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition. The "word" of YHWH is the Torah as defined in the Tanakh. This has also been dealt with in these threads.

Sure, I don't know why the finite men of Nicaea tried to define the Infinite Creator... agree, it makes no sense.

You "know" that the trinity is true because you stand of the definition of finite men of Nicaea who did not understand the Tanakh? You may say, you "think" it is true, but I challenge you test this idea. The trinity is not the definition of the Tanakh Jesus himself used.

 

[belantos]

Thomas called Jesus "My God". Get it right.

He simply worshipped the God who raised this faithful man from the dead.

 

[Duckybill]

The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition.

Is anyone surprised?

 

[Angelina]

Hi belantos!

The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition. The "word" of YHWH is the Torah as defined in the Tanakh. This has also been dealt with in these threads.

No-one here believes that the bible is not the "Word of God" This is a Christian forum. Every Christian believer here knows that the bible is the "Word of God" :huh:

The Judaic Jews believe in the Tanakh, not Christian believers. They are still waiting for the Messiah to come...we know that he has already come and is seated on the right hand of the Father. We also know that he has sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in all those who believe in his son and the work he had done on the cross, on our behalf. Some day he will come again to bring salvation [into the eternal Kingdom] for all those who patiently wait for him.

Blessings!!!

 

[Duckybill]

He simply worshipped the God who raised this faithful man from the dead.

From your chosen translation:

John 20:28-29 (NRSV)
[sup]28 [/sup]Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" [sup]29 [/sup]Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."

 

[belantos]

A transliteration of 1 John 1 5:20

1John 5:
20 And we know that the son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

I don't want to type out my reply again, here is one:
http://www.wrestedsc.../1john5v20.html

The "He" at the end refers to God, not to the son of God.

For someone who believes that we need to read verses in context, you certainly have not done this with Hebrews 1. :huh:

Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm which must be interpreted in the light of Hebrews 1:5-11, not the other way around.

If the "Torah, Prophets and Writings" were good enough for Jesus, they should also be good enough for us. It is incorrect to assume the Tanakh didn't make sense to anyone before the NT was written.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

God's promise to Solomon - and the hidden meaning is the Messiah. "Son" is not a reference to a deity.

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

The reference "god" is to a righteous Jewish King - again, the hidden meaning is the Messiah. If God exalts this king above the angels, then it is expected that the angels of God pay homage to their superior.

10 He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.

13 To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

Also note verse 10
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

and also verse 13
"To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

How many human Kings has God ever said this to?

Blessings!!!

Here are some thoughts about this...


"The Oxford Bible Commentary (2000) is helpful when it notes that right up to Hebrews 2:5 the topic is the new creation in Christ. Hebrews 1:10 is included in that main subject:

The text at the center of Heb. 2:5ff. is Ps. 8:4-6 and it exhibits thematic connections to the scriptural catena [chain] of the first chapter [i.e. Heb. 1:10 is all part of the same reference to the new creation]…Heb. 2:5 [“the inhabited earth to come of which we speak”] is an introductory comment continuing the contrast between the Son and angels. Its reference to the “world to come” reinforces the notions of imminent judgment and cosmic transformation intimated by Ps. 102, cited at 1:10-12.
​

Isaiah 51:16 confirms this explanation. It speaks of an agent of God in whom God puts His words and whom He uses “to plant the heavens and earth.” The Word Biblical Commentary says:

Yahweh introduces Himself again, but this time in terms of His control of the raging sea. He addresses the one He is using to put His words into his mouth and protecting him very carefully. The purpose of this care is to allow him to plant heavens and earth. That makes no sense if it refers to the original [Genesis] creation. It uses the word NaTaH [Jer. 10:12 + 10 times], stretch out, while the verb here is NaTA, plant [establish people]. In the other instances God acts alone, using no agent [Isa. 44:24]. Here the one he has hidden in the shadow of his hand is his agent. Heavens and land here must refer metaphorically to the totality of order in Palestine, heavens meaning the broader overarching structure of the Empire, while land is the political order

in Palestine itself. The assignment is then focused more precisely: to say to Zion, you are my people.”"
​

Psalm 102 is about the creation of the new heaven and new earth, that is, the new order - and not the creation of the physical world -, of which the Messiah is an agent. The author of Hebrews quotes from the LXX rather than from the Hebrew, leading to the confusion of people who see the deity of the Messiah here.

 

[Duckybill]

Your favorite English Bible is betraying your beliefs belantos.

John 20:28-29 (NRSV)
[sup]28 [/sup]Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" [sup]29 [/sup]Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."

 

[belantos]

Hi belantos!

No-one here believes that the bible is not the "Word of God" This is a Christian forum. Every Christian believer here knows that the bible is the "Word of God" :huh:

The Judaic Jews believe in the Tanakh, not Christian believers. They are still waiting for the Messiah to come...we know that he has already come and is seated on the right hand of the Father. We also know that he has sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in all those who believe in his son and the work he had done on the cross, on our behalf. Some day he will come again to bring salvation [into the eternal Kingdom] for all those who patiently wait for him.

Blessings!!!

Hi Angelina

I know that Christians, including JWs, believe that the bible is the "word of God". My concern is not what you call the bible as long as you understand that this is an external definition.

The problem is that these Christians then read the bible and whenever they see reference to the word of God they think that it is the bible. Unfortunately, it leads to the gross misinterpretation of these passages.

Regarding the Spirit, I have shown you the passage Peter quoted from Joel, which specifically states that the Spirit was only meant to be given prior to the wrath of God, and this was the reason Peter's Jewish audience was so frightened. The Kingdom had come at that time in a spiritual sense, since Jesus declared, "all power and authority was given to me", that is, he was seated on the throne as the King. It is my view that the Kingdom will have a physical manifestation one day.

Now you need to ignore Joel and claim that the Spirit was meant for all the time. It was not.

Your favorite English Bible is betraying your beliefs belantos.

John 20:28-29 (NRSV)
[sup]28 [/sup]Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" [sup]29 [/sup]Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."

It is not about the bible translation. It is about the concept of the "shaliach". Don't ignore it.

 

[Duckybill]

Well belantos, your favorite English Bible condemns your beliefs, so now you declare the Bible to NOT be the Word of God.

 

[belantos]

Well belantos, your favorite English Bible condemns your beliefs, so now you declare the Bible to NOT be the Word of God.

No, it doesn't condemn it. You seem to forget that the scripture needs to be interpreted, and interpretation must be done by following certain rules.

You can call the bible whatever way you wish. But whenever bible passages refer to the "word" of God, it is the Torah, not the Christian bible.

 

[Duckybill]

No, it doesn't condemn it. You seem to forget that the scripture needs to be interpreted, and interpretation must be done by following certain rules.

Meaning re-written by you.

You can call the bible whatever way you wish. But whenever bible passages refer to the "word" of God, it is the Torah, not the Christian bible.

There ya go folks.

 

[aspen]

Hi Angelina

I know that Christians, including JWs, believe that the bible is the "word of God". My concern is not what you call the bible as long as you understand that this is an external definition.

The problem is that these Christians then read the bible and whenever they see reference to the word of God they think that it is the bible. Unfortunately, it leads to the gross misinterpretation of these passages.

Regarding the Spirit, I have shown you the passage Peter quoted from Joel, which specifically states that the Spirit was only meant to be given prior to the wrath of God, and this was the reason Peter's Jewish audience was so frightened. The Kingdom had come at that time in a spiritual sense, since Jesus declared, "all power and authority was given to me", that is, he was seated on the throne as the King. It is my view that the Kingdom will have a physical manifestation one day.

Now you need to ignore Joel and claim that the Spirit was meant for all the time. It was not.

It is not about the bible translation. It is about the concept of the "shaliach". Don't ignore it.

[font="Verdana]The Rabbinic concept of the shaliach had a function that was more legal than religious (to serve documents, collect money, carry information), was applied generally to human representation (whether individuals or groups), and lasted for only a limited period.[/font]
[font="Verdana]
[/font]
[font="Verdana]The Old Testament notion of a shaliach also differs from the rabbinic conceptions of that term and appears to be of more significance for understanding the New Testament term “apostle.” The “sending” and commissioning of the great prophetic figures Moses and Isaiah ([url="http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=ex+3:10"]Exodus 3:10[/url]; Isaiah 6:8 where the Hebrew verb for sending, shalach, is translated by apostello in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, as divine spokesmen surely influenced the New Testament word, “apostle.” We may also note that the same “sending” terminology is applied to other noteworthy characters such as Elijah (2 Kings 2:2,2 Kings 2:4,2 Kings 2:6), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:7), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:3-4). As a reference to a divine spokesman, Old Testament ideas of a “sent one” are certainly in line with the New Testament term “apostle.” Compare Jeremiah 7:25.[/font]
[font="Verdana]
[/font]
[font="Verdana]Nothing in this description of the [/font][font="Verdana]shaliach, leaves room for Thomas to refer to Jesus as his God. In fact, if Jesus was simply a [/font][font="Verdana]shaliach, why would that be threatening to the Pharisees? No one called Moses God or Lord.[/font]

 

[belantos]

Meaning re-written by you.

There ya go folks.

Have you hears of the PaRDeS? Go and study it. It is used extensively in the NT.

http://www.zworld.com.au/2006/04/03/pardes-the-four-levels-of-interpretation/

You must NEVER read external definitions into the scriptures. You must employ the definitions of the scriptures themselves.

 

[belantos]

[font="Verdana]The Rabbinic concept of the shaliach had a function that was more legal than religious (to serve documents, collect money, carry information), was applied generally to human representation (whether individuals or groups), and lasted for only a limited period.[/font]
[font="Verdana]
[/font]
[font="Verdana]The Old Testament notion of a shaliach also differs from the rabbinic conceptions of that term and appears to be of more significance for understanding the New Testament term “apostle.” The “sending” and commissioning of the great prophetic figures Moses and Isaiah ([url="http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=ex+3:10"]Exodus 3:10[/url]; Isaiah 6:8 where the Hebrew verb for sending, shalach, is translated by apostello in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, as divine spokesmen surely influenced the New Testament word, “apostle.” We may also note that the same “sending” terminology is applied to other noteworthy characters such as Elijah (2 Kings 2:2,2 Kings 2:4,2 Kings 2:6), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:7), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:3-4). As a reference to a divine spokesman, Old Testament ideas of a “sent one” are certainly in line with the New Testament term “apostle.” Compare Jeremiah 7:25.[/font]
[font="Verdana]
[/font]
[font="Verdana]Nothing in this description of the [/font][font="Verdana]shaliach, leaves room for Thomas to refer to Jesus as his God. In fact, if Jesus was simply a [/font][font="Verdana]shaliach, why would that be threatening to the Pharisees? No one called Moses God or Lord.[/font]
[/quote]

Maybe you want to read the following:

"Appointing a agent isn’t like hiring a plumber; the agent doesn’t just do your job, [b]he becomes you[/b]!"
...
Similarly, when we live up to G-d’s desire; fulfilling His will, becoming His agents as it were, we [b]remove all sense of self from the mission[/b] and bind ourselves to the source of that mission by [b]becoming one with our G-d[/b] in the ultimate unity of existence."

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/514789/jewish/Let-Me-Be-You.htm

"“Shali­ach — the word means “agent” and “emis­sary” — is a halachic (Torah-legal) term for a per­son empow­ered by some­one else to act in his stead. The shali­ach first appears in the Torah in the per­son of Eliezer, whom Abra­ham com­mis­sioned to find a wife for his son, Isaac. Rebecca was selected and betrothed as a wife for Isaac by Eliezer — she was legally Isaac’s wife with­out her actual hus­band hav­ing ever set eyes on her or hav­ing exchanged a sin­gle word with her. In the words of the Tal­mud, “A person’s shali­ach is as he himself.”

There exists a halachic model (the eved or “slave”) for one who has abne­gated his will, per­son­al­ity and very iden­tity to that of his “mas­ter.” There also exists the model of the “employee” (sachir), who assumes the oblig­a­tion to per­form a cer­tain task for some­one else, but whose per­son­al­ity and iden­tity remain sep­a­rate and dis­tinct from the per­son­al­ity and iden­tity of his “employer.” The shali­ach is unique in that he or she retains a great degree of auton­omy in car­ry­ing out his mis­sion, yet at the same time becomes a vir­tual exten­sion of the per­son who com­mis­sioned him (the meshaleiach).

The shali­ach does not abne­gate his intel­lect, will, desires, feel­ings, tal­ents and per­sonal “style” to that of the one whom he rep­re­sents; rather, he enlists them in the ful­fill­ment of his mis­sion. The result of this is not a lesser bond between the two, but the con­trary: the meshaleiach is act­ing through the whole of the shali­ach — not only through the shaliach’s phys­i­cal actions, but also through the shaliach’s per­son­al­ity, which has become an exten­sion of the meshaleiach’s personality.”"

http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/1088/jewish/The-Emissaries.htm


Now let's look at the passage in context and deal with it once for all, but before that let's see a passage where Jesus claims to be the representative of God:

John 12
44 And Jesus cried out and said, “[b]He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but [u]in Him who sent Me[/u].[/b] 45 [b]He who sees Me sees[u] the One who sent Me[/u][/b]. 46 I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. 47 If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but [b]the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak[/b]. 50 I know that His commandment is eternal life [ie "life pertaining to the age"]; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”

Now don't forget this when you read the next passage:


John 20:
19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” 24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

What was Thomas' quest? He didn't believe Jesus was risen. Jesus asked him to touch him. So Thomas believed that Jesus was really risen. And acknowledge God through the recognition that He rose his faithful servant.

And notice the conclusion. The story was written so that we may believe that Jesus is - not God - but the son of God.