Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?
Comments
-
Logos Bible search for (<Lemma = lbs/el/ἐγώ> ANDEQUALS <LogosMorphGr ~ R??NS??>) BEFORE 1 WORD <Lemma = lbs/el/εἰμί> includes Mark 14:62 with three Hebrew scripture images: "I AM" plus two more (followed by Jewish High Priest wanting Jesus put to death for blasphemy). Synoptic Gospels have some "I AM" uses while John's Gospel has more.
Jesus' response to the high priest in Mark 14.62 most naturally reads as a conventional, commonplace employment of the phrase "I am." Of the handful of translations I consulted, only the NLT draws attention to the phrase as anything other a direct response to the question asked. That is...
- "Are you the Messiah?"
- "I am."
I continue to assert that the Synoptic gospels do not present "I Am" imagery in the way John's gospel does.
According to absolute monotheism belief, this assertion appears absolutely true. From plural unity belief view, this statement lacks understanding about One God's commUnity of Love. Human sports counter example is a player/coach. Coach role decides who will play so the player can be the one "chosen" by the coach (same person). Human business counter example is the President of a corporation deciding who should represent the corporation during negotiations, which could be the President so one person "from" the corporation is the same person for negotiating.
My favorite player-coach of all time was Bill Russell, the 1950's and 60's great of the NBA's Boston Celtics. He served as the Celtics' player-coach for three seasons. During his tenure as player-coach, NOT ONCE did anyone not know that whenever he was on the court, he was ALSO the team's coach. He made that clear. His players knew that clearly. The fans in the stands and around the nation always knew Russell was not just a player, and not just a coach; he was both. When Russell sent himself into the game, he the coach sent himself the player into the game. Both roles were clear to every observer.
When a corporate executive selects him- or herself to represent the company, the same is true. Everyone knows the one representing the company is ALSO a company executive. In fact, he or she is likely to be introduced, or at least registered, that way.
Such clarity about Jesus' dual roles does not exist in the NT. Nearly EVERY reference Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself make to Jesus' identity clearly distinct from God's. Not once does Jesus or Peter or Paul say Jesus sent himself to earth, or that he can do all things on his own. Consistently it is God - the one Jesus calls "Father" - who sent him and God who informs and empowers his ministry.
I reassert my claim that you have offered no textual support for your claim of a "commUnity of Love."
Observation: "clear distinction" is a way to express absolute monotheism belief. Missing from "clear distinction" is an explanation for Jesus knowing He is from above (while humans are from below).
I don't claim Jesus denies spiritual intimacy with God. I claim that Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. For example, when in John 20.17, the resurrected Jesus tells Mary... (NLT, emphasis added)
17 “Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”
... he's saying his Father/God is the disciples' Father/God, the most obvious meaning of which is he is ascending to someone other than himself.
And when in Luke 18.19 Jesus says to a religious leader who had called him "good teacher"...
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “Only God is truly good."
... the most natural meaning is that he doesn't believe he is God.
Plural unity of One God reflects complex intermingling of singular/plural nouns, pronouns, and verbs with אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ (Plural God).
What word(s) describe One God using plural pronouns with singular image (unity) in Genesis 1:26 (NLT) Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.
Seems if One God was an absolute monotheist, then Genesis chapter 1 would use a singular noun instead of plural elohim, which needs a minimum of three since Hebrew nouns can have singular, dual, and plural forms.
If scores, perhaps hundreds, of Old Testament plural references to God allude to a Trinitarian godhead, then why are there no references to those plural references in the New Testament? If your analysis is correct, it seems to me that the OT has Trinitarian support strewn throughout its pages, available for easy deployment by NT writers, and even Jesus himself. But NO ONE makes use of them as evidence of a multi-dimensional godhead. Quite the contrary is true, actually, as no NT writer - and not Jesus either - even asserts that Jesus is God. In my view, the absence of NT references to the purported authority of OT plural nouns referring to God is strong evidence that neither Jesus nor any NT writer believed those references reported anything other than a strictly monotheistic God.
Was plural elohim mistakenly used instead of a singular noun for God in Genesis chapter 1 ?
If yes, then what is trustworthy in the Bible ?
If no, then what is plural in One God ?
I see no evidence of mistakes. Consider the concept called "pluralis excellentiae."
When Yeshua (יְהוָ֥ה salvation) was asked about the most important commandment in the Torah (Teaching), he quoted "The Shema" whose first line (Deuteronomy 6:4) includes plural unity of One True God:
But Jesus makes no reference to any form of "plural unity" in his statement. Plus, in Mark's telling of the scene, a teacher of religious law responds to Jesus' quotation of the Shema by saying "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth by saying that there is only one God and no other," (Mark 12.32, NLT) a summary Jesus commends by telling the teacher he is "not far from the Kingdom of God" because of "how much the man understood." (Mark 12.34)
Had Jesus believed there was something to the godhead that the teacher's summary statement missed - for example, that there was more to God than the words "one...and no other" obviously imply - his response to the teacher was the moment to voice it. But rather than amending or qualifying the teacher's assessment, Jesus commends it, telling the teacher that he's not far from the Kingdom. In my view, that's clear evidence that Jesus felt no need to correct the teacher's view that there is "no other" than the "one" God.
One true God (who alone is to be worshipped) is a plural unified God, which is consistent with plural pronouns and one unified image in Genesis 1:26. Searching NLT Bible for phrase "The LORD your God" finds 399 Old Covenant (Testament) verses having LORD (Hebrew singular) your God (Hebrew plural) so plural unified God has substantial scriptural support. English translation of Hebrew Plural elohimuses "God" for One True God in NLT along with "gods" or "idols" when refering to false gods: e.g. Deuteronomy 7:25, 12:3
Addressed above.
Observation is the word Messiah not appearing in the cited text so reply leaves question unanswered about what unbelieving Jews heard so they wanted to kill Yeshua for blasphemy (per Leviticus 24:15-16).
I'm surprised by your contention that the word "Messiah" doesn't appear in the cited text (John 10.22-33). As a matter of fact, it's in John 10.24 (NLT):
The people surrounded him and asked, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
From my perspective, the ones who thought Jesus guilty of blasphemy (profaning God's Name) had an absolute monotheistic belief; could not believe that any part of One God could be in human flesh while remembering Psalm 53:2-3 (NLT) אֱלֹהִים God looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks אֱלֹהִים God. But no, all have turned away; all have become corrupt. No one does good, not a single one!
In my view, there is no assurance that those who criticize Jesus are correct in their critiques. That people CLAIM Jesus thinks he's God doesn't mean Jesus actually thinks he's God. And as I have shown previously in our exchange, Jesus' response to their accusation makes clear that he rejects their accusation (John 10.34-38)
Concur God speaks in Isaiah 43:10-13 with Jesus referring to “From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can snatch anyone out of my hand. No one can undo what I have done.” using snatching out of hand descriptions in John 10:28-29
If Jesus is not Lord יהוה God, then Jesus is not Savior ("from eternity to eternity") => "There is no other God — there never has been, and there never will be. I, yes I, am יהוה the Lord, and there is no other Savior."
There is no reference to Jesus in the Isaiah text.
As for saviors, in my view, God is the ultimate source and giver of salvation - the ultimate "savior" - while Jesus is the person through whom God brings salvation to the world - the transactional savior; the human embodiment of God's saving grace. (e.g. Acts 2.22-36; Acts 10.36; Romans 3.23-26; Romans 5.15-17; Galatians 3.13-14; Ephesians 1.1-14; 1 Thessalonians 5.9-11)
-
For I am God; there is no other.
@Wolfgang wrote: Hmn .... and I was told God was Three ( Father, Son and Holy Ghost) and thus I would have expected more a "For WE are God, there is no other".
Plural elohim has singular subject pronouns (have been unable to find WE that represents elohim God in the Old Testament). Object pronouns have both singular and plural representing elohim God. Singular object pronoun agrees with singular subject pronoun when both are used in a verse.
@Wolfgang wrote: The personal pronoun "I" is SINGULAR, isn't it? A unit of more than one member would not be speaking of themselves as a singular person, or what?
Concur "What ?" is a worthwhile question to pursue since elohim is plural that has plural object & possessive pronouns representing One God (while also having singular subject, object, possessive, and reflexive pronouns for One God in other verses).
What is Plural in One God ?
Pericope "The Futility of Idols" in Isaiah 41:21-29 does not have elohim while has both "I" and "WE" (singular and plural subject pronouns). Do any of the "WE" pronouns in Isaiah 41:21-26 refer to One God ?
@Bill_Coley wrote: Jesus' response to the high priest in Mark 14.62 most naturally reads as a conventional, commonplace employment of the phrase "I am."
From an absolute monotheistic belief view that does not want to consider Jesus being God, "most naturally" is correct. The Septuagint translation has relatively few conventional uses of "I am" (less than a dozen) compared to 6,040 uses of "I am" for One God's most Holy name.
To the Jewish ears hearing words from Jesus, the "I am" phrase reminds them of Exodus 3:14 name for One God (along with thousands of "I am" repetitions in daily prayers and synagogue readings) so they reacted with indignation per Leviticus 24:15-16 (justifiable reason for Jesus to die).
@Bill_Coley wrote: I continue to assert that the Synoptic gospels do not present "I Am" imagery in the way John's gospel does.
Concur John's Gospel has more "I am" imagery (with phrase ἐγώ εἰμί "I, I am" occuring 25 times).
@Bill_Coley wrote: Such clarity about Jesus' dual roles does not exist in the NT.
John 14:15-31 "Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit" includes John 14:23 (NLT with Bold Greek emphasis) Jesus replied, “All who love me will dowhat I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them.
If Jesus is not God, then please explain how the man Jesus can come with God the Father to make their home in different humans.
@Bill_Coley wrote: I reassert my claim that you have offered no textual support for your claim of a "commUnity of Love."
From my view, John 14:23 is an example of One God's commUnity of Love so am Thankful for God the Father & God the Son (& God the Holy Spirit) making their spiritual home in me (literally experiencing God's Truth of John 14:23 every day). Pericope "Loving One Another" in 1 John 4:7-21 describes commUnity of Love that includes Jesus (with rest of One God) living in every believer.
Observation: "clear distinction" is a way to express absolute monotheism belief. Missing from "clear distinction" is an explanation for Jesus knowing He is from above (while humans are from below).
@Bill_Coley wrote: I don't claim Jesus denies spiritual intimacy with God. I claim that Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. For example, when in John 20.17, the resurrected Jesus tells Mary... (NLT, emphasis added)
Still waiting for explanation how Jesus knew He is from above (while humans are from below), which implies to me that Jesus knew He is God in human flesh.
By the way, "most obvious" meaning of John 20:17 reflects abosolute monotheism belief view. To me, Jesus returned (ascended) to One God's throne that Jesus had left to become human.
@Bill_Coley wrote: If scores, perhaps hundreds, of Old Testament plural references to God allude to a Trinitarian godhead, then why are there no references to those plural references in the New Testament?
Baptism of Jesus includes God speaking from above along with Holy Spirit descending as a dove. Matthew 28:19 includes baptism command in One Name.
@Bill_Coley wrote: There is no reference to Jesus in the Isaiah text.
Did the prophet Isaiah make a mistake in Isaiah 43:10-13 by writing words from Lord יהוה God: "I, yes I, am יהוה the Lord, and there is no other Savior." ? (plainly communicates to me there is no Savior who is not Lord יהוה God)
Keep Smiling 😀
-
What is Plural in One God ?
Absolutely nothing !!
The very few places where the singular ONE, the Creator, the Almighty, speaks of HIMSELF in 1st person plural, HE is using the plural in a figure of speech (majestic plural) speaking of HIMSELF.
The often used verse in Gen 1:26 with the "Let us ..." statement is isolated to claim that "God" is a "plurality Godhead" (the term "plurality" would actually mean a "Godhead" of several "Gods" ... which fact is of course denied and swept under the theological carpet). One only needs to read the very next verse Gen 1:27 which records the execution of what God announced in v.26, and one would immediately see that there were no plural "God-persons" involved in doing what God had said HE would do ("So God created man in HIS image").
-
From an absolute monotheistic belief view that does not want to consider Jesus being God, "most naturally" is correct. The Septuagint translation has relatively few conventional uses of "I am" (less than a dozen) compared to 6,040 uses of "I am" for One God's most Holy name.
To the Jewish ears hearing words from Jesus, the "I am" phrase reminds them of Exodus 3:14 name for One God (along with thousands of "I am" repetitions in daily prayers and synagogue readings) so they reacted with indignation per Leviticus 24:15-16 (justifiable reason for Jesus to die).
In my view, the nature of one's "monotheistic belief" has no bearing on the meaning of Jesus' "I am" response in Mark 14.62. The high priest asks Jesus, "Are you the Messiah?" Jesus answers, "I am." No different from were you to ask me whether I am Bill. My response would be, "I am."
As for "Jewish ears," I assume they, as all other kinds of ears, could discern Jesus' simple, direct reply to the high priest's question.
Concur John's Gospel has more "I am" imagery (with phrase ἐγώ εἰμί "I, I am" occuring 25 times).
May we never tire of common ground.
John 14:15-31 "Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit" includes John 14:23 (NLT with Bold Greek emphasis) Jesus replied, “All who love me will dowhat I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them.
If Jesus is not God, then please explain how the man Jesus can come with God the Father to make their home in different humans.
Notice the following about the John 14 text you cite:
- Jesus asserts no connection between himself and the "Advocate" for which he will ask God ("the Father")
- Jesus speaks of his return to the disciples as a post-resurrection encounter (John 14.19-20) Given that John's gospel is written well after the resurrection, it's not surprising that he employs such imagery.
- Jesus tells the disciples that they will be "in" him and he will be "in" them IN THE SAME SENTENCE as tells them that he is in God. (John 14.20) Conclusion? For Jesus to be "in the Father" is a relationship not too unlike the one disciples can have with God and Jesus, and therefore is not necessarily reflective of a multi-dimensional godhead.
- The "we will come to them" imagery is ALSO a post-resurrection encounter, which explains how Jesus can make his home in different humans. After the resurrection, he's glorified and no longer human.
From my view, John 14:23 is an example of One God's commUnity of Love so am Thankful for God the Father & God the Son (& God the Holy Spirit) making their spiritual home in me (literally experiencing God's Truth of John 14:23 every day). Pericope "Loving One Another" in 1 John 4:7-21 describes commUnity of Love that includes Jesus (with rest of One God) living in every believer.
I respect your interpretation of John 14.23 as an example of what you call "One God's commUnity of Love." I disagree with you as to the significance of the verse's imagery, but I certainly respect your interpretation. Is there a second verse in the Gospels in which Jesus makes the same point? I can't find such a verse - one in which Jesus speaks of himself and the "Father" as "we." Please cite. I read John 14.23 as a post-resurrection assessment of Jesus' glorified state.
Still waiting for explanation how Jesus knew He is from above (while humans are from below), which implies to me that Jesus knew He is God in human flesh.
In my view, in context, Jesus' "above"/"below" distinction does not propose his deity, but rather speaks to the difference between his spiritual roots and those of the crowd to whom he's speaking. For example, he's just told them they will die in their sin (John 8.21). Jesus believes that he himself will not die in his own sin. They are "from below" because they are not connected to the Father, and are lost in their sin. He is "from above" because he IS connected to the Father and is not lost in his own sin.
In addition, note the subordinate role Jesus describes for himself in relationship to the Father:
- He says only what the one who sent him has told him (John 8.26)
- He does nothing on his own, and says only what the Father has taught him (John 8.28)
- The Father is always with him because he (Jesus) always does what pleases the Father. (John 8.29)
By the way, "most obvious" meaning of John 20:17 reflects abosolute monotheism belief view. To me, Jesus returned (ascended) to One God's throne that Jesus had left to become human.
In my view, the "most obvious meaning" of a word, phrase, or sentence has no necessary connection to one's beliefs about monotheism. In John 20.17, Jesus says he's returning to the disciples' God and his own God, to their Father and his own Father. It is the words of the verse, not my views about monotheism, that produce my "most obvious meaning" conclusion. What produces YOUR view of the "most obvious meaning" of the verse?
Baptism of Jesus includes God speaking from above along with Holy Spirit descending as a dove. Matthew 28:19 includes baptism command in One Name.
Your example does not respond to the issue I raised. Where are the NT references to what you believe are the scores, perhaps hundreds of OT plural pronouns for God? Where are the NT speakers and writers who say "Look at all those plural pronouns, folks! God is OBVIOUSLY multi-dimensional. Jesus IS God!!" [HINT: There are NO such verses. I contend that's because NT writers and speakers believe those plural pronouns do NOT refer to a multi-dimensional God, but rather to the one, only, and monotheistic God.]
Did the prophet Isaiah make a mistake in Isaiah 43:10-13 by writing words from Lord יהוה God: "I, yes I, am יהוה the Lord, and there is no other Savior." ? (plainly communicates to me there is no Savior who is not Lord יהוה God)
As I argued in my previous post, the "savior" God claims to be in Isaiah 43 is NOT a future savior. In Isaiah 43.12, God says "First I predicted your rescue, then I saved you and proclaimed it to the world. No foreign god has ever done this. You are witnesses that I am the only God,” says the LORD." We get a clear sense of the verse's connection to the exodus via Isaiah 43.16-17....
"16 I am the LORD, who opened a way through the waters, making a dry path through the sea. 17 I called forth the mighty army of Egypt with all its chariots and horses. I drew them beneath the waves, and they drowned, their lives snuffed out like a smoldering candlewick. "
Yes, God has additional actions planned (Isaiah 43.19) but there is no sense in the chapter that God intends to act through deity agent 600 years in the future.
For those two reasons, I reassert my claim that there is no reference to Jesus in the Isaiah text.
-
Amazing aspect of absolute monotheism faith is God the Father desiring a spiritual, loving relationship with every human while not believing the One God could be spiritually in Holy Heaven and dwelling in one Holy human body (did not inherit sin nature from Adam) at the same time. Thankful for One God being everywhere spiritually (no place to hide from God).
@Wolfgang The very few places where the singular ONE, the Creator, the Almighty, speaks of HIMSELF in 1st person plural, HE is using the plural in a figure of speech (majestic plural) speaking of HIMSELF.
Concur 1st person plural usage in Isaiah 41:21-29 is majestic plus literally True in One God (so is more than a figure of speech).
Isaiah 42:8-9 (ESV) I am the יהוה Lord; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them.”
Did Isaiah make a mistake when writing the יהוה Lord's words, especially "my glory I give to no other" ? (my plural unity faith view in One God believes Isaiah's words are literally True since Jesus is Lord יהוה God, which is echoed in John 17:5)
Related verse is Gen 3:22 (ESV) "Then the יהוה Lord אֱלֹהִים God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil." that is also followed in a later verse by subject singular pronoun for One God (so both plural and singular pronouns are used to describe One God). Appears absolute monotheism faith understands One God and many gods, but not plural unity in One God. My plural unity faith in One God understands three diety beliefs: 1) Absolute monotheism, 2) Plural unity, & 3) polytheism (form of idolatry)
Logos search of all resources for {Headword Godhead} found many articles (current copyrighted resources have restrictions on Title page so cannot quote them for this discussion), which includes the 1915 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) that ends with:
It is theotēs which occurs in Col 2:9. Here Paul declares that “all the fulness of the Godhead” dwells in Christ “bodily.” The phrase “fulness of the Godhead” is an esp. emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ “bodily,” that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not “bodily”; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fulness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotēs may mean all that theotēs can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotēs means; but theotēs must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotēs refers to the essence and theiotēs to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotēs emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotēs might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It it not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which “heroes” might aspire, and “demons” attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods, or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fulness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern Eng. than the term “Godhead,” in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert—that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term “God,” dwells, in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.
Benjamin B. Warfield, “Godhead,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 1269–1270.
Another Godhead definition is in Easton's Bible DIctionary:
Godhead—(Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9), the essential being or the nature of God.
M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893).
Keep Smiling 😀
-
From an absolute monotheistic belief view that does not want to consider Jesus being God, "most naturally" is correct. The Septuagint translation has relatively few conventional uses of "I am" (less than a dozen) compared to 6,040 uses of "I am" for One God's most Holy name.
To the Jewish ears hearing words from Jesus, the "I am" phrase reminds them of Exodus 3:14 name for One God (along with thousands of "I am" repetitions in daily prayers and synagogue readings) so they reacted with indignation per Leviticus 24:15-16 (justifiable reason for Jesus to die).
@Bill_Coley In my view, the nature of one's "monotheistic belief" has no bearing on the meaning of Jesus' "I am" response in Mark 14.62. The high priest asks Jesus, "Are you the Messiah?" Jesus answers, "I am." No different from were you to ask me whether I am Bill. My response would be, "I am."
@Bill_Coley As for "Jewish ears," I assume they, as all other kinds of ears, could discern Jesus' simple, direct reply to the high priest's question.
If Jewish ears had interpreted Jesus "I, I Am" as a simple, direct reply, the night trial would have continued since two or three witnesses are needed to legally establish cause that is punishable by death (while remembering one of the ten commandments is "You must not murder"). Jewish High Priest reaction of tearing in his robe shows he believed Jesus blasphemed (so had legal reason for Jesus to die), which is further indicated by no need for more witnesses (since others in the Sanhedrin had heard & agreed with blasphemy).
- @Bill_Coley The "we will come to them" imagery is ALSO a post-resurrection encounter, which explains how Jesus can make his home in different humans. After the resurrection, he's glorified and no longer human.
Please elaborate about what glorification changed in Jesus. Many of your replies have stated that glorified Jesus and God are clearly separate, which leaves me wondering about polytheism faith instead of montheism. Also, God's Holy Spirit is a representative of Jesus so what/who is Jesus ?
Personally not aware of any man who can make a spiritual home with God the Father in other humans while being Thankful One God wants to be in every human (in Loving commUnity), but first requires belief in Him.
@Bill_Coley I respect your interpretation of John 14.23 as an example of what you call "One God's commUnity of Love." I disagree with you as to the significance of the verse's imagery, but I certainly respect your interpretation. Is there a second verse in the Gospels in which Jesus makes the same point? I can't find such a verse - one in which Jesus speaks of himself and the "Father" as "we." Please cite. I read John 14.23 as a post-resurrection assessment of Jesus' glorified state.
John 17:5 (NLT) Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began.
John 17:11 (NLT) Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, you have given me your name; now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are.
Jesus knew Lord יהוה God name, "I, I AM", had been given to Him by God the Father so One God shares One Name between two voices while sharing eternal being essence of God.
John 17:20-22 (NLT) “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one.
echos John 10:30 (NLT) The Father and I are one.
Noticed lack of glorified change in Hebrews 13:8 (NLT) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Still waiting for explanation how Jesus knew He is from above (while humans are from below), which implies to me that Jesus knew He is God in human flesh.
@Bill_Coley In my view, in context, Jesus' "above"/"below" distinction does not propose his deity, but rather speaks to the difference between his spiritual roots and those of the crowd to whom he's speaking. For example, he's just told them they will die in their sin (John 8.21). Jesus believes that he himself will not die in his own sin. They are "from below" because they are not connected to the Father, and are lost in their sin. He is "from above" because he IS connected to the Father and is not lost in his own sin.
If Jesus is the natural son of Joseph and Mary, then what caused spiritual roots to be different so Jesus declares He is from above ?
- How did Jesus know He came "down from heaven" ?
John 3:13 (NLT) But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.
John 6:32-33 (NLT) Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the true bread from heaven. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
John 6:51 (NLT) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
@Bill_Coley In addition, note the subordinate role Jesus describes for himself in relationship to the Father:
Subordinate role does not deny diety, but rather is a Loving expression of God's commUnity of Love where The Word (Jesus) became flesh to obey The Will (Father). The Will and The Word existed before creation out of nothing while having an intense love relationship that allows humans to do God's Will by hearing & obeying God's Word.
@Bill_Coley It is the words of the verse, not my views about monotheism, that produce my "most obvious meaning" conclusion. What produces YOUR view of the "most obvious meaning" of the verse?
Humanly aware that my own understanding of words is filtered first by my beliefs (challenging is focusing on communication from other people to understand their point of view, which is a work in progress for me). Hence for studying God's Word, my prayer to God is opening my eyes so can behold the wonders of His Word, which can be different than my previous understanding. Thankful for Holy Spirit peacefully guiding me at least four times to appropriate scripture for this discussion, which included connecting Isaiah 43:10-13 to John 10:22-31 that helped me understand Jewish blasphemy reaction.
@Bill_Coley Your example does not respond to the issue I raised. Where are the NT references to what you believe are the scores, perhaps hundreds of OT plural pronouns for God?
Lord יהוה Jesus connects with OT phrase "The יהוה Lord your אֱלֹהִים God" that has singular and plural nouns referring to One God.
@Bill_Coley [HINT: There are NO such verses. I contend that's because NT writers and speakers believe those plural pronouns do NOT refer to a multi-dimensional God, but rather to the one, only, and monotheistic God.]
Hint shows personal belief view being projected on NT writers and speakers. At times wonder about the words used when Paul disputed with Jews for hours about multi-dimensional God (suspect plural & singular pronouns were mentioned) as Paul lovingly attempted to persuade Jews that Jesus is Lord יהוה God. Some Jews heard & believed while others believed they were hearing blasphemy so Paul ought to die.
@Bill_Coley Yes, God has additional actions planned (Isaiah 43.19) but there is no sense in the chapter that God intends to act through deity agent 600 years in the future.
An earlier chapter includes diety agent: Isaiah 9:1-7 describes future Galilee that includes a child is born, who is Mighty God.
Has God ever stopped being the Savior described in Isaiah 43 ? Pesach continues to be remembered with a seder meal, which commerates One God (and has a prophetic reference for Jesus returning to earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords).
Keep Smiling 😀
-
Noticed lack of glorified change in Hebrews 13:8 (NLT) JesusChrist is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Hmn ... you did not notice that Jesus Christ underwent some changes ??
For example., from a human being of flesh and blood (cp Heb 2:14) to being changed into a dead human being (cp being buried and in grave ) to being changed into a resurrected human being to die no more (Rev 1:18) ...
Hint shows personal belief view being projected on NT writers and speakers.
Your post constantly show your rather strange personal views being projected on scriptures (see above)
At times wonder about the words used when Paul disputed with Jews for hours about multi-dimensional God (suspect plural & singular pronouns were mentioned) as Paul lovingly attempted to persuade Jews that Jesus is Lord יהוה God. Some Jews heard & believed while others believed they were hearing blasphemy so Paul ought to die.
Once again, your personal weird idea of plural and singular pronouns aas well as your interpretation of the word "Lord" meaning "יהוה God" twist and change scripture and what is mentioned in Scripture regarding Paul's teaching. Paul was teaching in harmony with what Peter had already declared at Pentecost = that God had made THE MAN JESUS both Lord and Christ (cp Acts 2:36).
Now, even you should be able to notice that (1) God and (2) the man Jesus are NOT one and the same but rather are TWO ....
-
Noticed lack of glorified change in Hebrews 13:8 (NLT) JesusChrist is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
@Wolfgang Hmn ... you did not notice that Jesus Christ underwent some changes ??
@Wolfgang For example., from a human being of flesh and blood (cp Heb 2:14) to being changed into a dead human being (cp being buried and in grave ) to being changed into a resurrected human being to die no more (Rev 1:18) ...
Eternal essence of being God has not changed in Jesus (The Word). Temporary Holy human tent (body) had transitions, which included being the unblemished sin sacrifice.
Hint shows personal belief view being projected on NT writers and speakers.
@Wolfgang Your post constantly show your rather strange personal views being projected on scriptures (see above)
Noticed question from scripture left unanswered:
- How did Jesus know He "descended from heaven" or "came down from heaven" or ?
John 3:13 (ESV) No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
John 6:32-33 (ESV) Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
John 6:51 (ESV) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
At times wonder about the words used when Paul disputed with Jews for hours about multi-dimensional God (suspect plural & singular pronouns were mentioned) as Paul lovingly attempted to persuade Jews that Jesus is Lord יהוה God. Some Jews heard & believed while others believed they were hearing blasphemy so Paul ought to die.
@Wolfgang Once again, your personal weird idea of plural and singular pronouns aas well as your interpretation of the word "Lord" meaning "יהוה God" twist and change scripture and what is mentioned in Scripture regarding Paul's teaching. Paul was teaching in harmony with what Peter had already declared at Pentecost = that God had made THE MAN JESUS both Lord and Christ (cp Acts 2:36).
@Wolfgang Now, even you should be able to notice that (1) God and (2) the man Jesus are NOT one and the same but rather are TWO ....
Paul taught Jesus is Lord (יהוה God from daily Jewish prayers and synagogue readings יהוה => Adonai => Kurios => Lord) while explaining purpose of His Holy human body (spiritual fullness of deity dwelling inside):
Pericope "Alive in Christ" Colossians 2:6-15 (ESV) Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
Noticed question from scripture left unanswered:
How did Jesus know He "descended from heaven" or "came down from heaven" or ?
Answer is as simple as could be => FROM SCRIPTURE .... remember the incident on the road to Emmaus ??
As for the rest of your post, once again your reply comments have not much to do with what I had written and to which you replied.
You know, I am doubting that what I write and endeavor to set forth logically and with scriptures really reaches you .... your replies leave me puzzled whether I am a stupid ignorant fool ....😥
-
Noticed question from scripture left unanswered:
How did Jesus know He "descended from heaven" or "came down from heaven" or ?
@Wolfgang Answer is as simple as could be => FROM SCRIPTURE .... remember the incident on the road to Emmaus ??
Road to Emmaus included Genesis 3:15 (seed of a woman), Isaiah 7:14 ("God with us"), Isaiah 9:1-7 (a child is born ... Mighty God), Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (suffering servant), Micah 5:2 (Bethlehem "House of Bread" birthplace for "The Bread of Life") plus many more prophecies that Jesus intelligently knew were fulfilled concerning Him.
Question from scripture (before the crucifixion), How did Jesus intelligently know He "descended from heaven" or "came down from heaven" or "from above " (humans are from below) ? (my memories go back to a small child, yet Jesus knew He came from Heaven)
@Wolfgang As for the rest of your post, once again your reply comments have not much to do with what I had written and to which you replied.
@Wolfgang You know, I am doubting that what I write and endeavor to set forth logically and with scriptures really reaches you .... your replies leave me puzzled whether I am a stupid ignorant fool ....😥
God's Love is more than logic & knowledge; personally Thankful to be living & learning in One God. Thankful for God's Spirit of Truth in me so can prayerfully test human logic propositions (with assertion/assumption Jesus is separate from One God), which finds propositions lacking substance (at times, they provide insight about fantasy theology). One God chooses when to answer prayer.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
reading your ah so sweet and loving comments, I can only come to the conclusion that I must be the stupid ignorant fool ... .
-
@Wolfgang reading your ah so sweet and loving comments, I can only come to the conclusion that I must be the stupid ignorant fool ... .
While looking in the mirror at my own stupid foolish ways, was reminded about my 20 years of lost time from God's commUnity of Love by my selfish choices for self-inflicted drug addiction (repeatedly chose drug pleasure over God's Love, which included shame in the early years when coming down from drug high that I should not be doing this, but turned again to drug pleasure instead of God). Most challenging verse in the Bible for me is 1 John 1:9 since One God gave me a choice to trust Him for Holy cleansing, which included need for me to request/accept God's free forgiveness for my own sins. Thankful for intensity of my Love relationship in One God growing 😍so am experiencing the truth for one who has much forgiven loves much more.
Also was reminded of Isaiah 29:15-16 (ESV) Ah, you who hide deep from the יהוה Lord your counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?” You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
Learning ignorance <> bliss for Bible study so am praying & seeking to walk in the dust of the Jewish Rabbi (close enough to the Jewish Rabbi so dust kicked up from His sandles clings to my clothes) => Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewish Words of Jesus Can Change Your Life & Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith
Humans have sin temptations: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. Unrelenting spiritual advisary pokes thoughts at weakest sin link in each human for the purpose of disrupting Love relationship in One God. A prideful deception is the lie that Jesus is not God. Praying for One God to open my eyes to the wonders of His word plus studying God's Word showed me if Jesus is not God, then Jesus receiving worship for God is sin, which disqualifies Jesus from being savior for anyone else (in fact, Jesus would need a sin sacrifice for himself to become Holy). In John chapter 9, the man born blind worshipped Jesus as Lord יהוה God.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
If Jewish ears had interpreted Jesus "I, I Am" as a simple, direct reply, the night trial would have continued since two or three witnesses are needed to legally establish cause that is punishable by death (while remembering one of the ten commandments is "You must not murder"). Jewish High Priest reaction of tearing in his robe shows he believed Jesus blasphemed (so had legal reason for Jesus to die), which is further indicated by no need for more witnesses (since others in the Sanhedrin had heard & agreed with blasphemy).
In more than one previous post, I've made the following point to which you yet to respond directly: In my view, the fact that the high priest, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or any other persons/groups claimed Jesus believed he was God does NOT mean, let alone prove, that Jesus believed he was God, any more than does your claim earlier in this thread that I don't know Jesus mean, let alone prove, that I don't know Jesus. The best evidence of Jesus' self-understanding is NOT the assertions of his political and theological adversaries; rather, it is his personal testimony, the VAST majority of which, in my view, unmistakably reports that he does NOT see himself as God, but rather as a person God has called to a ministry of teaching, healing, sacrifice, and new life.
Please elaborate about what glorification changed in Jesus. Many of your replies have stated that glorified Jesus and God are clearly separate, which leaves me wondering about polytheism faith instead of montheism. Also, God's Holy Spirit is a representative of Jesus so what/who is Jesus ?
The principal verse here is John 7.39, where Jesus' entry into his glory seems synonymous with his resurrection. Post-resurrection, Jesus is no longer human: He sits at the right hand of God (Acts 2.33; Acts 7.55-56). He is the God-appointed judge in the form of the returning Son of Man (Matthew 16.27; John 5.27). But he is not God. That means there is only one God in my construction, which means there is no polytheism.
Jesus tells his followers that the Father will send the Advocate/Holy Spirit to...
- "testify" about him, just as they must testify about him (John 15.26). What is the disciples' testimony about Jesus? We hear it from Peter in Acts 4.10: Jesus was a "man" the Jews killed, but God raised.
- teach and remind them of what Jesus has told them (John 14.26)
- lead them into all truth (John 14.17)
In my view, the Advocate is heaven's follow-up to Jesus' earthly ministry. That God sends the Advocate for such a role does NOT mean, let alone prove, that Jesus was God.
Personally not aware of any man who can make a spiritual home with God the Father in other humans while being Thankful One God wants to be in every human (in Loving commUnity), but first requires belief in Him.
Once glorified, Jesus is no longer just a "man." Any God who can raise a crucified man to new life, can find a way for a resurrected man to make a home in other humans.
John 17:5 (NLT) Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began.
John 17:11 (NLT) Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, you have given me your name; now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are.
I obviously missed these verses as examples of Jesus' referring to God and himself as "we." My mistake.
Jesus knew Lord יהוה God name, "I, I AM", had been given to Him by God the Father so One God shares One Name between two voices while sharing eternal being essence of God.
Note the translators' notes on John 17.11-12, which report that some manuscripts say that what God gave Jesus was the disciples, whom Jesus has protected by the power of God's name. In the context of John 17, that rendering of the verses fits better than that of God's name being given to Jesus.
As for the prayer of John 17, note that Jesus defines the path to eternal life as knowing "you (the one Jesus calls "Father") the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one [God] sent to earth." (John 17.3) There is NO sense in that verse that Jesus believes he, too, is "the one true God."
John 17:20-22 (NLT) “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one.
Given EVERYTHING else Jesus says about God in the Gospels, in my view he CANNOT mean that he thinks himself to be God. For example, consider these verses from John 17:
6 “I have revealed you to the ones you gave me from this world. They were always yours. You gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything I have is a gift from you, 8 for I have passed on to them the message you gave me. They accepted it and know that I came from you, and they believe you sent me. 9 “My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you. 10 All who are mine belong to you, and you have given them to me, so they bring me glory.
Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Jn 17:6–10). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Again, there is NO sense in those verses that Jesus understands himself to be God. He says and does nothing on his own. His followers are people given to him by the one he calls "the one true God." They know/believe that Jesus is among them, not of his own volition, but because "the one true God" sent him. That's NOT the picture of one who claims to be God.
Noticed lack of glorified change in Hebrews 13:8 (NLT) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
But John 7.39 makes clear that Jesus was NOT the same before the resurrection as he was after.
If Jesus is the natural son of Joseph and Mary, then what caused spiritual roots to be different so Jesus declares He is from above?
As I explained previously, in my view, the strength of Jesus' faith in and surrender to God is what separates him from those who are "from below." Not everyone has the same strength of faith. Jesus had faith stronger than anyone's in human history, I believe.
John 6:32-33 (NLT) Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the truebread from heaven. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
John 6:51 (NLT) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
Jesus claims to be the "bread of God;" he does NOT claim to be God.
Notice that the VAST majority of the verses you cite in your posts come from John's Gospel. In part that must be because the Synoptics at no point support your claims; there, Jesus is CLEARLY and without much dispute a human whom God called into ministry. John's Gospel, as I have acknowledged on many occasions, presents verses which, when read without consideration of the Synoptics or the larger corpus of John's Gospel (John 17.3, previously cited; or John 4.25-26, where Jesus accepts the woman's definition of "messiah" as the one who "will explain everything" to the people - a role that is NOT the same as the Messiah's being God), can be interpreted as supportive of a trinitarian point of view. But when those johannine verses are read in their proper Gospel/NT context, in my view they MUST mean something other than the Trinity.
Subordinate role does not deny diety, but rather is a Loving expression of God's commUnity of Love where The Word (Jesus) became flesh to obey The Will (Father). The Will and The Word existed before creation out of nothing while having an intense love relationship that allows humans to do God's Will by hearing & obeying God's Word.
In the vast majority of examples of verses that define Jesus' subordinate role, there is NO indication that Jesus believes he is part of a Godhead.
Humanly aware that my own understanding of words is filtered first by my beliefs (challenging is focusing on communication from other people to understand their point of view, which is a work in progress for me). Hence for studying God's Word, my prayer to God is opening my eyes so can behold the wonders of His Word, which can be different than my previous understanding. Thankful for Holy Spirit peacefully guiding me at least four times to appropriate scripture for this discussion, which included connecting Isaiah 43:10-13 to John 10:22-31 that helped me understand Jewish blasphemy reaction.
In other words, YOUR understanding of words is influenced/filtered by your beliefs. That is, you're "guilty" of the very offense with which you charge me. The difference is that my understanding of the words of John 20.17 is supported by the content of the words of John 20.17. In my view, yours is not.
Lord יהוה Jesus connects with OT phrase "The יהוה Lord your אֱלֹהִים God" that has singular and plural nouns referring to One God.
You're addressing a question I didn't ask. I'm asking for NT verses in which writers point to what you claim are numerous plural pronouns for God in the OT and say, "See those! Those pronouns are evidence for a multi-dimensional Godhead!" I claim that NO NT writer - and not Jesus himself - cites those pronouns as evidence of such a godhead.
Hint shows personal belief view being projected on NT writers and speakers. At times wonder about the words used when Paul disputed with Jews for hours about multi-dimensional God (suspect plural & singular pronouns were mentioned) as Paul lovingly attempted to persuade Jews that Jesus is Lord יהוה God. Some Jews heard & believed while others believed they were hearing blasphemy so Paul ought to die.
You're of course welcome to "suspect" that Paul mentioned the plural pronouns in his disputes with Jews, just as I'm welcome to "suspect" that he didn't... based on the fact that in no NT text does Paul tell us he did so.
An earlier chapter includes diety agent: Isaiah 9:1-7 describes future Galilee that includes a child is born, who is Mighty God.
Has God ever stopped being the Savior described in Isaiah 43 ? Pesach continues to be remembered with a seder meal, which commerates One God (and has a prophetic reference for Jesus returning to earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords).
As for the child whose birth is reported in Isaiah 9, this, from the New Interpreter's Bible: (emphasis added)
Particularly in the light of the history of the interpretation of this text, it is important to clarify the tenses in the poem. Verses 2–5 clearly speak of past events. The verbs in vv. 2–3 are participles (“the people are walking” or “the people walked”), perfects (“have seen” or “saw”), and infinitives (“when they divide spoil”). This pattern continues in vv. 4–5 (“you have shattered”), with the exception of the final clause, which has been translated “shall be burned.” However, this is a result clause that can be read in the present tense. More decisive, the verbs in v. 6 are perfects and consecutive imperfects, the normal narrative tense in Hebrew. They must be read as reporting past action or, in view of the passives, possibly as present: “A child has been born to us … authority rests upon his shoulders.” Only in v. 7 does the poem turn to the future tense, describing how the reign of the one who has been born will grow, concluding with the affirmation that “the zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” The implications of this analysis are quite clear: The reasons for celebration—release from an oppressor, destruction of battle gear, and the birth of the “Prince of Peace”—are not in the future but in the past. These events form the basis for confidence in the future.
Tucker, G. M. (1994–2004). The Book of Isaiah 1–39. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 122). Nashville: Abingdon Press.
-
Humans have sin temptations: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. Unrelenting spiritual advisary pokes thoughts at weakest sin link in each human for the purpose of disrupting Love relationship in One God.
Was Jesus, who according to you is the Lord יהוה God, tempted?
A prideful deception is the lie that Jesus is not God.
Says who? the Roman Church or some other denomination? some professor, theologian ? IF Jesus was/is the Lord יהוה God then He could not have been tempted ... but was he tempted by the adversary (cp Mt 4:1ff and Lk 4:1ff)?
Praying for One God to open my eyes to the wonders of His word plus studying God's Word showed me if Jesus is not God, then Jesus receiving worship for God is sin, which disqualifies Jesus from being savior for anyone else (in fact, Jesus would need a sin sacrifice for himself to become Holy).
But Jesus never received worship for God ... he was worshiped as Messiah, as King, as Master, but NEVER as God. Thus, Jesus did NOT sin. As a matter of truth,. had Jesus received worship for God, he would have sinned because he would have elevated himself to a SECOND God.
You are fabricating this false theology by wrongly defining and interpreting the term "worship" and ignoring the contexts in which it is used.
In John chapter 9, the man born blind worshipped Jesus as Lord יהוה God.
A plainly false claim not supported by the text at all.
Here, you are fabricating the false theology by wrongly defining and interpreting the word "lord" and ignoring the contexts in which it is used.
-
The Bible says Jesus will be called Son, Holy Spirit, God, and Father.
If the Bible says Jesus is called that, then there should be no reason we can't call him that.
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
The Bible says Jesus will be called Son, Holy Spirit, God, and Father.
If the Bible says Jesus is called that, then there should be no reason we can't call him that.
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Welcome to the forums, by the way!
While I respect your view of the matter, I disagree that the Bible says Jesus will be called "Son, Holy Spirit, God, and Father." I know of no textual basis for the claim that Jesus will be called "Father" or "Holy Spirit." I can think only of Thomas' assertion in John 20.28 that Jesus might be called "God." But that verse generates a bit of controversy, Thomas' claim is not repeated elsewhere in the NT, AND Thomas doesn't say Jesus WILL be called God.
As for Isaiah 9.6, notice that the prophet writes 700 years before the time of Jesus, and that he places the birth of the son who is given in the present tense: "For to us a child IS born, to us a son IS given." It looks like the birth of the child - which has already happened - is a sign of hope of a better future. (cf the tense of the action in Isaiah 9.1: "In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.)
The present/past tense in Isaiah 9 is in keeping with the tense in Isaiah 7, which predicts that within 65 years Israel will be destroyed (Isaiah 7.8) and before the child to be born knows right from wrong, those the two nations threatening King Ahaz will be brought to rubble (Isaiah 7.15-16)
-
Thank you so much for the welcome!
You don't seem to agree that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Jesus.
The Bible says that it is.
There is no other person who is called Mighty God and Everlasting Father and Wonderful Counselor.
-
You don't seem to agree that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Jesus.
The Bible says that it is.
There is no other person who is called Mighty God and Everlasting Father and Wonderful Counselor.
I contend that Isaiah says his prophecy is not about a child who will be born 700 years in the future, but is rather about a child who was already born or about to be born in Isaiah's time.
I also contend that Matthew found a new fulfillment of that prophecy when Jesus traveled to Capernaum, which was located in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, the areas mentioned by Isaiah.
I think it's possible for both things to be true: The prophet wrote of a child born in his time, AND Jesus reflected a different kind of fulfillment of the same prophecy.
I know of no textual support for the claim that Jesus is called "Mighty God and Everlasting Father and Wonderful Counselor." To my knowledge, that imagery is ONLY in Isaiah 9, where the prophet attaches those titles to the child of whom he writes, but the prophet does not identify the child as a one to be born in the distant future.
In addition, it seems to me that had Matthew wanted to attach the Isaianic titles to Jesus, he would have expanded his quotation from the Isaiah passage. But Matthew stopped with Isaiah 9.2, as if to say the fulfillment of the prophecy is specified to be Jesus' appearance in the lands the prophet mentioned brought predicted light to people living in darkness in those areas.
-
I contend that Isaiah says his prophecy is not about a child who will be born 700 years in the future, but is rather about a child who was already born or about to be born in Isaiah's time.
I also contend that Matthew found a new fulfillment of that prophecy when Jesus traveled to Capernaum, which was located in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, the areas mentioned by Isaiah.
I think it's possible for both things to be true: The prophet wrote of a child born in his time, AND Jesus reflected a different kind of fulfillment of the same prophecy.
I know of no textual support for the claim that Jesus is called "Mighty God and Everlasting Father and Wonderful Counselor." To my knowledge, that imagery is ONLY in Isaiah 9, where the prophet attaches those titles to the child of whom he writes, but the prophet does not identify the child as a one to be born in the distant future.
It could be about no one else.
Not only that, all the law and the prophets are about Jesus.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
-
It could be about no one else.
Not only that, all the law and the prophets are about Jesus.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
My point is that for the prophet, his prophecy was - in his own time - already in the process of being fulfilled. He told his audience that a child IS born and a son IS given (Isaiah 9.6) the birth had ALREADY taken place.
In Isaiah 7, the prophet quotes God saying to King Ahaz that Israel, one of two nations currently threatening Ahaz, will crumble within 65 years. It is the fall of those two nations - one of which will fall within 65 years (Isaiah 7.8) to which the child prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 refers. Isaiah says that child will be a sign to Ahaz that those two nations, one of which will be gone in 65 years, will be gone by the time the child knows to choose right from wrong (Isaiah 7.15-16). In my view, that's clear evidence that for the prophet his prophecies were in the process of being fulfilled in his time, not 700 years later. Do you contend that the prophet was wrong when he quoted God as telling Ahaz that Israel would be destroyed within 65 years, and that before the child he prophesied to the king knows how to choose right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz fears would be deserted?
In the birth and ministry of Jesus, Matthew finds a new fulfillment of Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 9. To me, those fulfillments are a different issue. My ONLY point is that for the prophet Isaiah, his prophecies are in the process of fulfillment in his own time.
-
My point is that for the prophet, his prophecy was - in his own time - already in the process of being fulfilled. He told his audience that a child IS born and a son IS given (Isaiah 9.6) the birth had ALREADY taken place.
In Isaiah 7, the prophet quotes God saying to King Ahaz that Israel, one of two nations currently threatening Ahaz, will crumble within 65 years. It is the fall of those two nations - one of which will fall within 65 years (Isaiah 7.8) to which the child prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 refers. Isaiah says that child will be a sign to Ahaz that those two nations, one of which will be gone in 65 years, will be gone by the time the child knows to choose right from wrong (Isaiah 7.15-16). In my view, that's clear evidence that for the prophet his prophecies were in the process of being fulfilled in his time, not 700 years later. Do you contend that the prophet was wrong when he quoted God as telling Ahaz that Israel would be destroyed within 65 years, and that before the child he prophesied to the king knows how to choose right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz fears would be deserted?
In the birth and ministry of Jesus, Matthew finds a new fulfillment of Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 9. To me, those fulfillments are a different issue. My ONLY point is that for the prophet Isaiah, his prophecies are in the process of fulfillment in his own time.
It is still the truth about Jesus.
All the Law and the Prophets were about Jesus, even the Prophets names.
The Rock in the desert with Moses was about Jesus.
The bronze snake that Moses made was about Jesus.
The special days were about Jesus.
The sacrifices of animals was about Jesus.
Jonah in the whale for three days was about Jesus.
Israel the county was called God's First Born was about Jesus.
And much more.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
It is still the truth about Jesus.
All the Law and the Prophets were about Jesus, even the Prophets names.
The Rock in the desert with Moses was about Jesus.
The bronze snake that Moses made was about Jesus.
The special days were about Jesus.
The sacrifices of animals was about Jesus.
Jonah in the whale for three days was about Jesus.
Israel the county was called God's First Born was about Jesus.
And much more.
I respect your interpretations of these various biblical scenes and images, but must ask again the question I asked in my previous post, a question your interpretations don't address: Do you contend that the prophet Isaiah was wrong when he quoted God as telling King Ahaz that Israel would be destroyed within 65 years (Isaiah 7.8), and that before the child about whom he prophesied to the king knew how to choose right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz feared would be deserted (Isaiah 7.15-16)?
-
I respect your interpretations of these various biblical scenes and images, but must ask again the question I asked in my previous post, a question your interpretations don't address: Do you contend that the prophet Isaiah was wrong when he quoted God as telling King Ahaz that Israel would be destroyed within 65 years (Isaiah 7.8), and that before the child about whom he prophesied to the king knew how to choose right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz feared would be deserted (Isaiah 7.15-16)?
Thank you, but it is not my interpretation, it is stated in the Bible that it is about Jesus.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").
If you would like to explain more about why you don't want to just speak about that being about Jesus, then I would like to know why and how you think it disproves Jesus as being God.
-
Thank you, but it is not my interpretation, it is stated in the Bible that it is about Jesus.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").
If you would like to explain more about why you don't want to just speak about that being about Jesus, then I would like to know why and how you think it disproves Jesus as being God.
My previous post did not address the NT interpretations of the OT images to which you referred. My ONLY intention in my previous post was to re-ask the question I had raised in the post prior to that one, the question I ask again now: Do you contend that the prophet Isaiah was wrong when he quoted God as telling King Ahaz that Israel would be destroyed within 65 years (Isaiah 7.8), and that before the child about whom he prophesied to the king knew how to choose right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz feared would be deserted (Isaiah 7.15-16)?
I will gladly address any question on any issue, but first I request your direct response to the question I put forth again in this post.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
Thank you, but it is not my interpretation, it is stated in the Bible that it is about Jesus.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").
You claim that this saying From Isa is about Jesus ... could you then please point out to me in the gospels where the child born to Mary was given the name and called "Immanuel" ? I contend that Jesus was never called and named "Immanuel".
Were both Mary and Joseph wrong seeing that they did NOT name the child "Immanuel" but called him "Jesus" (respectively its Aramaic equivalent)? They were following instructions given them by an angel (cp. Luke 1:31 and Mt 1:21, 25), but perhaps the angel was wrong?
-
@Wolfgang
"You claim that this saying From Isa is about Jesus ... could you then please point out to me in the gospels where the child born to Mary was given the name and called "Immanuel" ? I contend that Jesus was never called and named "Immanuel".Were both Mary and Joseph wrong seeing that they did NOT name the child "Immanuel" but called him "Jesus" (respectively its Aramaic equivalent)? They were following instructions given them by an angel (cp. Luke 1:31 and Mt 1:21, 25), but perhaps the angel was wrong?"I already gave the scripture that says it. I will post it again:
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
That scripture is the fulfillment of this scripture:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel.
Jesus is God with us.
-
@Bill_Coley
"My previous post did not address the NT interpretations of the OT images to which you referred. My ONLY intention in my previous post was to re-ask the question I had raised in the post prior to that one, the question I ask again now: Do you contend that the prophet Isaiah was wrong when he quoted God as telling King Ahaz that Israel would be destroyed within 65 years (Isaiah 7.8), and that before the child about whom he prophesied to the king knew how to choose right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz feared would be deserted (Isaiah 7.15-16)?I will gladly address any question on any issue, but first I request your direct response to the question I put forth again in this post."Hi Bill, just wondering first what you think about it. We both know that it is another study of its own.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
...just wondering first what you think about it. We both know that it is another study of its own.
With all due respect, I can't escape the thought that you're avoiding the questions I've now asked you three times without receiving your reply.
In my view, it's a simple matter: Did the prophet misquote God when to King Ahaz he quoted God as saying Israel would be destroyed in 65 years? (Isaiah 7.8) And was Isaiah wrong to prophecy to Ahaz that the nations the king feared would be deserted before the child prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 knew how to choose good from evil? (Isaiah 7.15-16) For me, the answer to those both questions is no. How about for you?
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
@Wolfgang
"You claim that this saying From Isa is about Jesus ... could you then please point out to me in the gospels where the child born to Mary was given the name and called "Immanuel" ? I contend that Jesus was never called and named "Immanuel".Were both Mary and Joseph wrong seeing that they did NOT name the child "Immanuel" but called him "Jesus" (respectively its Aramaic equivalent)? They were following instructions given them by an angel (cp. Luke 1:31 and Mt 1:21, 25), but perhaps the angel was wrong?"I already gave the scripture that says it. I will post it again:
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
This scripture does NOT say that Jesus' name was called "Immanuel". The two passages to which I referred, clearly say that the name given to the child born to Mary was NOT "Immanuel" but "Jesus". So then, was the angel wrong in telling Mary and Joseph both to name the child Jesus and not Immanuel? Or were Mary and Joseph wrong by obeying the angel when they should have done what Isa 7:14 said?
I would appreciate your direct and plain answers to the questions you have been asked ... I really don't like people beating around the bush and evading answering ...
That scripture is the fulfillment of this scripture:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel.
The verse in Mt 1:23 provides a quotation of Isa 7:14 ... so then why do you seemingly read it as if it was not an OT quotation? why do you seemingly not pay attention to what the quoted text passage in Isa 7 was about?
Jesus is God with us.
Indeed, in what Jesus did accomplish in obedience to God's, his Father's will it was God with His people ... but Jesus was NOT God, he was God's Son.
-
@Bill_Coley With all due respect, I can't escape the thought that you're avoiding the questions I've now asked you three times without receiving your reply.
In my view, it's a simple matter: Did the prophet misquote God when to King Ahaz he quoted God as saying Israel would be destroyed in 65 years? (Isaiah 7.8) And was Isaiah wrong to prophecy to Ahaz that the nations the king feared would be deserted before the child prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 knew how to choose good from evil? (Isaiah 7.15-16) For me, the answer to those both questions is no. How about for you?
I have said from the beginning that it is about Jesus.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
