- This topic is empty.
- Posts
BD,
you said:Quote Why would he need to grow in Spirit and why would he need the Grace of God upon him if he himself is also God? So you are saying Jesus a spirit son first right? So he was begotten twice once in th spirit and once in the flesh?
He needed to grow in Spirit because He emptied Himself of whatever it was in order to become a baby. All babies need to grow in spirit. He needed the grace of God the Father on Him because He became lower than the angels as a man.
Also, yes I am saying that He was begotten as the only begotten God before the ages and was begotten as a man as the Son of David/Son of Man from Mary.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2012,14:51) BD,
you said:Quote Why would he need to grow in Spirit and why would he need the Grace of God upon him if he himself is also God? So you are saying Jesus a spirit son first right? So he was begotten twice once in th spirit and once in the flesh?
He needed to grow in Spirit because He emptied Himself of whatever it was in order to become a baby. All babies need to grow in spirit. He needed the grace of God the Father on Him because He became lower than the angels as a man.
Also, yes I am saying that He was begotten as the only begotten God before the ages and was begotten as a man as the Son of David/Son of Man from Mary.
So, Jesus was begotten twice, okay So did Jesus have to grow in Spirit a third time after he “resurrected” I mean after all he was dead and gave up the Spirit. So when he was raised was he raised with full Spirit?By the way was Jesus “God” when he was dead? Was he then the dead “God”?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2012,14:51) BD,
you said:Quote Why would he need to grow in Spirit and why would he need the Grace of God upon him if he himself is also God? So you are saying Jesus a spirit son first right? So he was begotten twice once in th spirit and once in the flesh?
He needed to grow in Spirit because He emptied Himself of whatever it was in order to become a baby. All babies need to grow in spirit. He needed the grace of God the Father on Him because He became lower than the angels as a man.
Also, yes I am saying that He was begotten as the only begotten God before the ages and was begotten as a man as the Son of David/Son of Man from Mary.
Bhe way the scriptures don't say the grace of God the Father was on him, the scriptures say the GRACE of GOD was on him ou know the baby that was lower than the angels at that time. So when Jesus was lower than the Angels was he God then?BD,
Jesus could never not be the begotten God. He emptied Himself to take on the form of a bondservant starting out as an infant. It is quite an act of love on His part to do so. He gave up so much in order to become a bondservant and live the life of a poor man, a man who actually as the only begotten God, owned everything and was Lord of all.Quote So, Jesus was begotten twice, okay So did Jesus have to grow in Spirit a third time after he “resurrected” I mean after all he was dead and gave up the Spirit. So when he was raised was he raised with full Spirit?
By the way was Jesus “God” when he was dead? Was he then the dead “God”?He was also 'begotten' from the dead but not in a brought forth from within a parent sort of way. He was brought forth from death. The divinity of Jesus did not die but only His flesh which was resurrected from the dead and reunited with His divinity once again. He was not the dead 'God' but the dead flesh that the begotten God became.
Kathi,
I wasn't even going to respond to your post until I read this part:
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,21:45) So much for your challenge, Mike 
Thems fightin' words!Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,21:45) One would have to always exist to have that name.
Why? If I named my son “Yahweh”, would it mean he has existed from eternity?
What about “Sam I Am”? Since his name is “I AM”, did he exist from eternity? 
Where do you get this stuff, Kathi?Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,21:45) In the Greek texts there IS reasonable proof that the Son is called YHWH,
No, actually there is only “wishful thinking” on your part. From NETNotes:
Gen 16:7
Heb “the messenger of the Lord.”Some identify the angel of the Lord as the preincarnate Christ because in some texts the angel is identified with the Lord himself.
However, it is more likely that the angel merely represents the Lord; he can speak for the Lord because he is sent with the Lord’s full authority.
In some cases the angel is clearly distinct from the Lord (see Judg 6:11-23).
It is not certain if the same angel is always in view. Though the proper name following the noun “angel” makes the construction definite, this may simply indicate that a definite angel sent from the Lord is referred to in any given context. It need not be the same angel on every occasion. Note the analogous expression “the servant of the Lord,” which refers to various individuals in the OT
Read that Judges passage they list, Kathi. It clearly points out that an ANGEL OF Jehovah is called “Jehovah”. But what proof do you actually have that this particular angel was Jesus?
I saw where you started a “Jesus is not an angel” thread today. Can you have it both ways? Can you insist that Jesus is not an angel, but then insist that the “angel of the LORD” is Jesus?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,21:45) ……..you make up the reason of a vice regent which has no proof nor consistency
And the Trinitarians from NETNotes agree with me. Read the Judges passage, Kathi. The angels OF Jehovah were often refered to as “God” or “Jehovah” in the scriptures. My claim not only has both proof AND consistency, but also support from Biblical scholars.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,21:45) In the Eastern Peshitta, there is clear evidence that the Son is also YHWH.
Wrong again. There is evidence that Jesus is refered to by the Aramaic word “marya”, which is the emphatic form of their word for “lord”. But there isn't any evidence that Jesus was ever called “YHWH” in the Peshitta. That is just more wishful thinking on your part.I will allow you time to respond to this info first. Then, if I feel like it later, I will address the points numbered 2, 3, and 5 in your post.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,22:57) The divinity of Jesus did not die but only His flesh which was resurrected from the dead and reunited with His divinity once again.
If Jesus didn't die in exactly the same way men die, then how can he be the first of many to follow?Scripture says Jesus died, but cannot die again because death NO LONGER has mastery over him.
YOU say “only part of Jesus died”. You and scripture are in conflict, Kathi.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2012,15:57) BD,
Jesus could never not be the begotten God. He emptied Himself to take on the form of a bondservant starting out as an infant. It is quite an act of love on His part to do so. He gave up so much in order to become a bondservant and live the life of a poor man, a man who actually as the only begotten God, owned everything and was Lord of all.Quote So, Jesus was begotten twice, okay So did Jesus have to grow in Spirit a third time after he “resurrected” I mean after all he was dead and gave up the Spirit. So when he was raised was he raised with full Spirit?
By the way was Jesus “God” when he was dead? Was he then the dead “God”?He was also 'begotten' from the dead but not in a brought forth from within a parent sort of way. He was brought forth from death. The divinity of Jesus did not die but only His flesh which was resurrected from the dead and reunited with His divinity once again. He was not the dead 'God' but the dead flesh that the begotten God became.
So why was Jesus believing that God had forsaken him?Actually, Jesus was bringing the spectators' attention to Ps 22, Asana. He did not really think God had forsaken him, for he already knew ahead of time what he was getting into. With his final words, he began the 22nd Psalm, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – and then he ended that same Psalm with “it is accomplished” (“he has done it” in the Psalm).
With his last words on earth, Jesus pointed to yet another prophecy about him, complete with explicite details about his condition on the stake – to prove that he was indeed the Messiah, and that all those things were happening with God's foreknowledge. They did not kill him, as if he didn't have the power to save himself. Instead, he offered up his life willingly. And that is exactly what he was telling those who had ears to hear.
peace,
mikeQuote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 14 2012,23:04) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2012,15:57) BD,
Jesus could never not be the begotten God. He emptied Himself to take on the form of a bondservant starting out as an infant. It is quite an act of love on His part to do so. He gave up so much in order to become a bondservant and live the life of a poor man, a man who actually as the only begotten God, owned everything and was Lord of all.Quote So, Jesus was begotten twice, okay So did Jesus have to grow in Spirit a third time after he “resurrected” I mean after all he was dead and gave up the Spirit. So when he was raised was he raised with full Spirit?
By the way was Jesus “God” when he was dead? Was he then the dead “God”?He was also 'begotten' from the dead but not in a brought forth from within a parent sort of way. He was brought forth from death. The divinity of Jesus did not die but only His flesh which was resurrected from the dead and reunited with His divinity once again. He was not the dead 'God' but the dead flesh that the begotten God became.
So why was Jesus believing that God had forsaken him?
BD,
This would be speculating but He may have, for the first time, felt the weight of sin…in fact the weight of the sin of the whole world.The Father did not forsake Him, however, btw.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 14 2012,21:27) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,22:57) The divinity of Jesus did not die but only His flesh which was resurrected from the dead and reunited with His divinity once again.
If Jesus didn't die in exactly the same way men die, then how can he be the first of many to follow?Scripture says Jesus died, but cannot die again because death NO LONGER has mastery over him.
YOU say “only part of Jesus died”. You and scripture are in conflict, Kathi.
Mike,
The human being died. Everything that was human and could die, did.Mike,
you said:Quote Why? If I named my son “Yahweh”, would it mean he has existed from eternity? What about “Sam I Am”? Since his name is “I AM”, did he exist from eternity? Where do you get this stuff, Kathi?Did you? Do you know anyone else named YHWH of I AM? If not, this is another of your silly 'what if' arguments that is not worth my time.
Quote No, actually there is only “wishful thinking” on your part. From NETNotes:
Gen 16:7
Heb “the messenger of the Lord.”Some identify the angel of the Lord as the preincarnate Christ because in some texts the angel is identified with the Lord himself.
However, it is more likely that the angel merely represents the Lord; he can speak for the Lord because he is sent with the Lord’s full authority.
In some cases the angel is clearly distinct from the Lord (see Judg 6:11-23).
It is not certain if the same angel is always in view. Though the proper name following the noun “angel” makes the construction definite, this may simply indicate that a definite angel sent from the Lord is referred to in any given context. It need not be the same angel on every occasion. Note the analogous expression “the servant of the Lord,” which refers to various individuals in the OT
Read that Judges passage they list, Kathi. It clearly points out that an ANGEL OF Jehovah is called “Jehovah”. But what proof do you actually have that this particular angel was Jesus?
Read what other commentary says in Bible.cc:
Gill:
and said unto him, the Lord is with thee; the gracious presence of God was with Gideon while he was threshing, who very probably was sending up ejaculations to heaven, on account of the distressed case of Israel, and was deep in meditation about the affairs of the people of God, and contriving how to deliver them; or the angel might mean himself, who was no other than Jehovah, the eternal Word of God, who was present with him, and spake unto him; and so the Targum,”my Word is thy help:”Matthew Henry:
The Angel turned the meat into an offering made by fire; showing that he was not a man who needed meat, but the Son of God, who was to be served and honoured by sacrifice, and who in the fulness of time was to make himself a sacrifice.Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
Appearance of the Angel of the Lord. – Judges 6:11. The angel of the Lord, i.e., Jehovah, in a visible self-revelation in human form (see Pentateuch, pp. 106ff.), appeared this time in the form of a traveller with a staff in his hand (Judges 6:21), and sat down “under the terebinth which (was) in Ophrah, that (belonged) to Joash the Abi-ezrite.”Also, read the net notes about YHWH in Gen. 18:
The reader knows this is a theophany. The three visitors are probably the Lord and two angels (see Gen 19:1). It is not certain how soon Abraham recognized the true identity of the visitors. His actions suggest he suspected this was something out of the ordinary, though it is possible that his lavish treatment of the visitors was done quite unwittingly. Bowing down to the ground would be reserved for obeisance of kings or worship of the Lord. Whether he was aware of it or not, Abraham’s action was most appropriate.12 tc The MT has the form אֲדֹנָי (’adonay, “Master”) which is reserved for God. This may reflect later scribal activity. The scribes, knowing it was the Lord, may have put the proper pointing with the word instead of the more common אֲדֹנִי (’adoni, “my master”).
So you see that there are scholars that believe that the Angel of the LORD is the LORD who can be seen, i.e, the Son.
In NET notes, we see that they do not believe all three men are angels but only two are and the third is Jehovah, a theophany. So, whatever the NET notes says about Judges 6, other scholars disagree. We do know that in Gen 18, the net notes do not believe the one referred to as YHWH is a vice regent or angel but YHWH as a theophany.
Quote I saw where you started a “Jesus is not an angel” thread today. Can you have it both ways? Can you insist that Jesus is not an angel, but then insist that the “angel of the LORD” is Jesus? Well, that is not the complete title of the thread, is it? Was that an innocent mistake or deliberate mistake to slant your argument?
Human BEINGS are called angels at times,
Angel BEINGS are called angels consistently.
A deity BEING is called angel at times.Jesus is not an angel BEING although He is a messenger. Jesus NEVER declares Himself to be an angel being in the NT and in fact I have listed several verses that clearly say that Jesus is someone OTHER than the angels.
Quote My claim not only has both proof AND consistency, but also support from Biblical scholars. NOT! See above.
Quote Wrong again. There is evidence that Jesus is refered to by the Aramaic word “marya”, which is the emphatic form of their word for “lord”. But there isn't any evidence that Jesus was ever called “YHWH” in the Peshitta. That is just more wishful thinking on your part. No one is called YHWH in the Peshitta, they substituted it with MarYa/MarYah in the singular form. Like you said, Jesus is MarYa/MarYah, so is the Father.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2012,11:32) Actually, Jesus was bringing the spectators' attention to Ps 22, Asana. He did not really think God had forsaken him, for he already knew ahead of time what he was getting into. With his final words, he began the 22nd Psalm, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – and then he ended that same Psalm with “it is accomplished” (“he has done it” in the Psalm). With his last words on earth, Jesus pointed to yet another prophecy about him, complete with explicite details about his condition on the stake – to prove that he was indeed the Messiah, and that all those things were happening with God's foreknowledge. They did not kill him, as if he didn't have the power to save himself. Instead, he offered up his life willingly. And that is exactly what he was telling those who had ears to hear.
peace,
mike
The Scriptues says: “Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”This is in definie agreement with: Mark 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.So if we believe Jesus asked to be saved and found himself not being saved it would make sense to feel forsaken.
Bt if we read that psalms 22 we can understand perhaps it is not referring to Jesus at all, would Jesus say “I am a worm and not a man”?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2012,01:12) Jesus never asked to be saved from dying for our sins, BD.
Then what did he mean by asking for this cup to be taken from him? Why was he in the garden sweating, crying and pleading he asked 3 times Father TAKE THIS CUP from me.He DID NOT WANT TO BE CRUCIFIED or KILLED how can you go against the scriptures and say that it was okay with him.
Matthew 26:39
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Matthew 26:38-40Matthew 26:42
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.Jesus asked to be saved, how can you interpret this any other way?
This goes against your entire claim that Jesus is God, you claim he knew and accepted this mission and it was all a plan from the beginning and yet with eternal planning you expect me to believe that “God” got nervous at the last moment although he would know as God that he couldn't really die?
BD,
Do you not remember me telling you the answer to this? The 'cup' was the horrible extent of suffering, not the death. This proves that He did indeed become flesh and felt every bit of the suffering. He knew He was going to suffer and die, but was wanting to be spared the 'extreme' suffering. If He did not become flesh, He could not be a blood sacrifice. His flesh really did die and was excruciatingly painful and on top of that, He felt the weight of the sin of the whole world which felt like a separation from His Father even though His Father did not forsake Him at all.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2012,04:09) BD,
Do you not remember me telling you the answer to this? The 'cup' was the horrible extent of suffering, not the death. This proves that He did indeed become flesh and felt every bit of the suffering. He knew He was going to suffer and die, but was wanting to be spared the 'extreme' suffering. If He did not become flesh, He could not be a blood sacrifice. His flesh really did die and was excruciatingly painful and on top of that, He felt the weight of the sin of the whole world which felt like a separation from His Father even though His Father did not forsake Him at all.
Then he didn't want to SUFFER which included DEATH any way you want to put it he asked to be saved from it, whether it be suffering or death or both he asked to be saved. He said it was not his will.People everyday accept suffering and dying for their country or religion and they don't asked to be spared because it is actually their will, these are the same people that you claim JESUS CREATED so if it was the will of Jesus to die on behalf of others you don't believe he could accept suffering and death when the average religious fanatic laughs at death and welcomes it?
The scripture shows that Jesus did not want to suffer or be killed and it also shows that the reason is he knew he was innocent and should not be condemned, that's what the scriptures show your beliefs are not in sync with the scriptures.
I used the word 'extreme.' I didn't say that He didn't want to suffer or not. He did accept it but could of called on legions of angels to take Him from it…but He did not. Jesus showed amazing courage, see here:
Matt 26:47While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people. 48Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him.” 49Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. 50And Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.
51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53“Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54“How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”
55At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. 56“But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.
His purpose was to fulfill scriptures but could have been rescued if He asked His Father for that.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2012,19:50) Do you know anyone else named YHWH of I AM? If not, this is another of your silly 'what if' arguments that is not worth my time.
Are you saying that if I can search the internet and find ANYONE who has ever been named “Yahweh”, you'll concede that your original claim is much sillier than my opposing arguments? Heck, I'll go and buy a dog right now just to name him Yahweh to prove this point. I'll go and adopt a kid and name him Yahweh if I have to.Kathi, where is your EVIDENCE that anyone named “Yahweh” would have existed from eternity?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2012,19:50) Read what other commentary says in Bible.cc:
And tell me where their PROOF is, Kathi. Do you have any PROOF at all that ANY of the “angels of the LORD” were EVER Jesus? NO! So let it go, because it is merely wishful thinking on your part, and on the part of many Trinitarian scholars. (That's why I like NETNotes, because even though they are all Trinitarians, they don't just go along with all the usual “Jesus is God” claims made by the rest. There are many notes where they say, “This is often used to support the diety of Jesus, BUT…………………. it really doesn't.”)Either show UNDENIABLE PROOF, or let it go as just something you THINK without any evidence to support it, okay?)
Where are we now? Oh, that's right, TWO fantasies up, TWO fantasies batted down for lack of proof. What's next?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2012,19:50) Jesus is not an angel BEING although He is a messenger. Jesus NEVER declares Himself to be an angel being in the NT and in fact I have listed several verses that clearly say that Jesus is someone OTHER than the angels.
The Hebrew AND the Greek word is “messenger”, not “angel”. “Angel” is an English word that is many times the substitute in a text that really says “messenger”. Read Young's Literal sometime to see the passage as it was written.Better yet, go and switch the word “angel” in your new thread back to the word “messenger”, and see how the meaning will change for you.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2012,19:50) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) My claim not only has both proof AND consistency, but also support from Biblical scholars. NOT! See above.
I didn't say that EVERY TRINITARIAN SCHOLAR agrees with my claim, did I? But it is clear that NETNotes did, right? So like I said, my claim has proof, consistency, AND support from Biblical scholars.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2012,19:50) No one is called YHWH in the Peshitta, they substituted it with MarYa/MarYah in the singular form. Like you said, Jesus is MarYa/MarYah, so is the Father.
Jesus is a king, so is his God and Father. Jesus is a lord, so is his God Father.Yep, I guess that is proof that anyone who is a king and a lord is Jehovah Himself.
The Aramaic word “marya” simply means “lord”, as I've shown you over and over. And yes, Jehovah is a “lord” as well as His Son Jesus. How in the world does the fact they are both lords mean that Jesus is named Jehovah?
Kathi, in an effort to not have to do this silly stuff again, let me lay out some ground rules:
1. If you do not have scriptural proof that anyone named “Yahweh” must have existed from eternity, don't make that claim anymore.
2. If you don't have scriptural proof that Jesus is actually called by the Hebrew name “Yahweh”, then don't make that claim anymore.
3. If you don't have scriptural PROOF (not a guess) that Jesus was any of the “angels of the LORD” from the OT, then don't make that claim anymore.
4. Unless you can use the word “messenger” (instead of “angel) to prove that Jesus is not a “messenger being”, then don't claim that he is not a messenger being. I understand that Jesus is different than any other messenger God has ever used, but that doesn't mean Jesus is not still a spirit messenger (therefore “angel”) of his God.
I think by following these guidelines, which insist that you have PROOF to go along with your many claims, our conversations will slowly dwindle down to nothing. (Since most of my discussions with you involve me pointing out that what you're claiming can't actually be proven.)
peace,
mikeQuote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 15 2012,22:43) Bt if we read that psalms 22 we can understand perhaps it is not referring to Jesus at all…………….
You're kidding me, right? Have you read the Psalm?Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 16 2012,11:35) Then he didn't want to SUFFER which included DEATH any way you want to put it he asked to be saved from it, whether it be suffering or death or both he asked to be saved. He said it was not his will.
Jesus was saying, “God, if there is any other way you can atone for the sins of mankind, please use that other way, because I'm getting scared thinking about the pain and suffering I'm about to go through. But as always, let it be YOUR will that gets done, not mine.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
