Jesus not the only true god/ jesus tells who is

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 23 2009,17:52)

Hi E, You must remain orthodox. Otherwise you would dare to align with God's words.

so you do reject all of the Apostle Paul's writings!!! wow… that is sad Nick… you elevate yourself to higher and higher levels of infallibility. You have rejected Rome's Pope only to become one yourself.

blessings,
ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (kerwin @ April 23 2009,18:59)

epistemaniac wrote: Quote apparently you are unaware that kyrios translates the name of God (Yahweh/Jehovah) in the LXX. The New Testament writers did replace Yahweh/Jehovah with Lord but that does not mean that the Lord always means Yahweh/Jehovah.  Jews do not like using God's name even though Yahweh/Jehovah is probably really not His name but merely a statement of His existence.  I believe His name is EL which explains Elohim.  If I understand correctly El may mean Lord so the circle is complete.

I did not say that “lord” or kyrios always means Yahweh and/or Jehovah, only that in some cases it does, and in those cases, shows the deity of Christ. I know that this is not good news for all the Arians, Monarchianists (Adoptionists, Dynamic Monarchians, Patripassians, or Modalistic Monarchians), Sabellians, Patripassionists, Modalists etc that are on this forum, who do not want to accept the word of God, but instead exchange it for human philosophies and carnal reasoning about what and who God must or must not be, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

blessings,
ken

(PS, that last sentence is hyperbole and sarcasm, taken out of the playbook of many here at this forum, so don't take it too seriously, unless it does in fact apply to you 😉 )

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
Following experts will only lead to their pit.
Become as a child of God.
2 Corinthians 11
1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (epistemaniac @ April 23 2009,15:21)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 23 2009,08:27) Quote (epistemaniac @ April 22 2009,15:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 17 2009,16:43) Quote (epistemaniac @ April 17 2009,04:34) nope… Jesus DID NOT say that Quote THEE ONLY TRUE GOD if for no other reason than that Jesus did not speak Elizabethan English 😉 since the bible elsewhere says that Jesus is God, (Heb. 1:8; Titus 1:3-4, etc etc), then the Bible teaches a contradiction (polytheism) by insisting that there is only one true God, yet it also commands us to believe on Jesus who, being “god”, and who, if He is not the one true God, He must therefore be a false God, or you have the doctrine of the Trinity which resolves this issue by saying that God the Father and God the Son are one in essence, together with the Holy Spirit. One God, three in person.. Nowhere are the attributes of God assigned to mere human judges, so the comparison with the way that the word “god” is used of Jesus is not a comparison of like to like, but is instead apples to oranges. God does not require us to believe on the name of any human judge in order to be saved, nowhere does the bible say that any human judge was sinless, deserved to be worshiped with the worship due to God alone, nowhere do these judges claim for themselves the ability to forgive sins committed against God, nowhere did they ever claim the ability to raise themselves from the dead, nowhere do these human judges speak of being able to know the hearts of men, as it is of Jesus Christ… an attribute belonging to God alone… and on and on it could go…. this is an example of the type of fallacy in the other thread by the same OP called a faulty analogy…. “In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.” Human judges are relevantly dissimilar, therefore just because human judges are called “god” and the same is said of Jesus, it does not follow that they are called “god” in the exact same way.   blessings, ken Thee or the is not the point ONLY and TRUE is the point. Titus 1:3-4 4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ[a] our Savior. Notice the scripture says GOD the Father and the “Lord” Jesus Christ. Just so everyone here knows and understands the word Lord does not ever mean God it simply means Master or Owner or possesor just as those who rent apartments have Landlords I hope you don't worship your landlord although being nice to them is a Godly thing to be. consider that “God” means Supreme being then that being said The Father is The Most High in Supremity and there for the Onlu True Supreme Being. apparently you are unaware that kyrios translates the name of God (Yahweh/Jehovah) in the LXX…. but I can't blame you for your ignorance, hopefully it does not continue… after the followng information is given to you, there is no exceuse for your ignorance to continue…. (g) kyrios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25. “Thus the usage of the word in the NT follows two main lines: one– a-f, customary and general, the other, g, peculiar to the Jews, and drawn from the Greek translation of the OT. “Christ Himself assumed the title, Matt. 7:21, 22; Matt. 9:38; Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 5:19 (cp. Psa. 66:16; the parallel passage, Luke 8:39, has 'God'); Luke 19:31; John 13:13, apparently intending it in the higher senses of its current use, and at the same time suggesting its OT associations. “His purpose did not become clear to the disciples until after His resurrection, and the revelation of His Deity consequent thereon. Thomas, when he realized the significance of the presence of a mortal wound in the body of a living man, immediately joined with it the absolute title of Deity, saying, 'My Lord and my God,' John 20:28. Thereafter, except in Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14, there is no record that kyrios was ever again used by believers in addressing any save God and the Lord Jesus; cp. Acts 2:47 with Acts 4:29, 30. “How soon and how completely the lower meaning had been superseded is seen in Peter's declaration in his first sermon after the resurrection, 'God hath made Him, Lord,' Acts 2:36, and that in the house of Cornelius, 'He is Lord of all,' Acts 10:36; cp. Deut. 10:14; Matt. 11:25; Acts 17:24. In his writings the implications of his early teaching are confirmed and developed. Thus Psa. 34:8, 'O taste and see that Jehovah is good,' is applied to the Lord Jesus, 1 Pet. 2:3, and 'Jehovah of Hosts, Him shall ye sanctify,' Isa. 8:13, becomes 'sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord,' 1 Pet. 3:15. “So also James who uses kyrios alike of God, Jas. 1:7 (cp. Jas. 1:5); Jas. 3:9; Jas. 4:15; Jas. 5:4, 10, 11, and of the Lord Jesus, Jas. 1:1 (where the possibility that kai is intended epexegetically, i.e. = even, cp. 1 Thess. 3:11, should not be overlooked); Jas. 2:1 (lit., 'our Lord Jesus Christ of glory,' cp. Psa. 24:7; Psa. 29:3; Acts 7:2; 1 Cor. 2:8); 1 Cor. 5:7, 8, while the language of Jas. 4:10; Jas. 5:15, is equally applicable to either. “Jude, Jude 1:4, speaks of 'our only–Lord, Jesus Christ,' and immediately, Jude 1:5, uses 'Lord' of God (see the remarkable marg. here), as he does later, Jude 1:9, 14. “Paul ordinarily uses kyrios of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 1:3, e.g., but also on occasion, of God, in quotations from the OT, 1 Cor. 3:20, e.g., and in his own words, 1 Cor. 3:5, cp. 1 Cor. 3:10. It is equally appropriate to either in 1 Cor. 7:25; 2 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 8:21; 1 Thess. 4:6, and if 1 Cor. 11:32 is to be interpreted by 1 Cor. 10:21, 22, the Lord Jesus is intended, but if by Heb. 12:5-9, then kyrios here also = God. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16 is probably to be understood of the Lord Jesus, cp. Rev. 17:14. “Though John does not use 'Lord' in his Epistles, and though, like the other Evangelists, he ordinarily uses the personal Name in his narrative, yet he occasionally speaks of Him as 'the Lord,' John 4:1; John 6:23; John 11:2; John 20:20; John 21:12. “The full significance of this association of Jesus with God under the one appellation, 'Lord,' is seen when it is remembered that these men belonged to the only monotheistic race in the world. To associate with the Creator one known to be a creature, however exalted, though possible to P agan philosophers, was quite impossible to a Jew. “It is not recorded that in the days of His flesh any of His disciples either addressed the Lord, or spoke of Him, by His personal Name. Where Paul has occasion to refer to the facts of the Gospel history he speaks of what the Lord Jesus said, Acts 20:35, and did, 1 Cor. 11:23, and suffered, 1 Thess. 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:9, 10. It is our Lord Jesus who is coming, 1 Thess. 2:19, etc. In prayer also the title is given, 1 Thess. 3:11; Eph. 1:3; the sinner is invited to believe on the Lord Jesus, Acts 16:31; Acts 20:21, and the saint to look to the Lord Jesus for deliverance, Rom. 7:24, 25, and in the few exceptional cases in which the personal Name stands alone a reason is always discernible in the immediate context. “The title 'Lord,' as given to the Savior, in its full significance rests upon the resurrection, Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; Rom. 14:9, and is realized only in the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:3.” * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 25.] —Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words a landlord, well I am buying my house so I really don't have a “landlord” but…. in any case… a landlord is not my Lord, and that you would compare a landlord to my Lord and King Jesus Christ is nothing short of blasphemous…. hopefully now that you know the real ramifications of the term kyrios, you no longer have an excuse either for your ignorance or your cavalier blasphemous comparisons… blessings, ken Kyrios means lord or master You seem to have misunderstood that using the word Lord to substitute for Saying Yahweh does not apply in the NT and even if it did it still would not convert the actual meaning  if that were true all those called lord in the enture Bible would be God. BTW, Those who do have landlords are aware that the property does not belong to them. Also the Head of Christ is GOD, true or false? Who is Christ? Who is God? Please answer the above questions as they apply to the first question. Please do not try to change definitions of words, it is not needed. We all know that Jesus only refers to God as Father. So you are saying that Jesus is Jehovah because someone called him Master(lord) just like Mary said Rabbi(teacher) Nice try though. I did not change the definitions of words, but instead gave you a standard dictionary definition by a popular, non-controversial reference book. If you choose to ignore this reference and live in your own tiny little bubble of infallibility, well have at it. Here is yet another standard you can ignore…. though of course, at your own peril, and of course giving you the truth, and having you choose to stay ignorant, is something you and God have to sort out…. “E. kýrios in the NT. 1. Secular Usage. In the NT kýrios is used for the owner of the vineyard (Mk. 12:9) or of animals (Lk. 19:33; Mt. 15:27), and for the master of the steward (Lk. 16:3) and slaves (Eph. 6:5-6). It also refers to the one who controls something, e.g., the harvest (Mt. 9:38) or the sabbath (Mk. 2:28). Polite usage occurs in Lk. 1:43, but superiority is suggested in 1 Pet. 3:6; Mk. 12:36-37; Acts 25:26. Slaves and workers use the address kýrie (cf. Lk. 13:8). The Jews use the same address to Pilate in Mt. 27:63, Mary to the gardener in Jn. 20:15, the jailer to Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30 (cf. also Mt. 21:29; Acts 10:4). The double form occurs in Mt. 7:21-22; 25:11; Lk. 6:46. We find genitive combinations in 1 Cor. 2:8 (glory) and 2 Th. 3:16 (peace). despótēs is used only in prayer or for the master of slaves or owner of a house (1 Tim. 6:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:21). 2. God as Lord. God is called kýrios in the NT mostly in OT quotations or allusions (Mk. 1:3; 12:11, etc.; for a full list see TDNT, III, 1086-87). In the basic Synoptic material God is ho kýrios only in Mk. 5:19. kýrios is very common in the prologue to Luke (cf. also the epilogue to Matthew). LXX influence may be seen in expressions like the hand, name, angel, spirit, or word of the Lord (Lk. 1:66; Jms. 5:10; Mt. 1:20; Acts 5:9; 8:25). kýrios also means God in 1 Cor. 10:9; 1 Tim. 6:15; Heb. 7:21, etc., and Revelation has such formulas as kýrios ho theós (1:8 etc.; cf. 11:15; 22:6). The data suggest that kýrios is not a common term for God apart from OT use, but that its content can at any time be given full weight (cf. Mt. 11:25, which implies free assent to the free divine decision; Mt. 9:38, where the lord of the harvest is the Lord of world history; 1 Tim. 6:15, which ascribes total sovereignty to God; and Acts 17:24, where God is Lord as Creator). In Revelation God is Lord as the Almighty (1:8 etc.), but the elders call him “our Lord” (4:11). Lord has a special emphasis in the prayer of Acts 1:24 and it underlies the obligation of worship in Jms. 3:9. 3. Jesus as Lord. a. Paul in 1 Cor. 12:3 contrasts anáthema Iēsoús and kýrios Iēsoús. The parallel is not exact, for anáthema may be pronounced against many persons or things but kýrios applies to Jesus alone. In Phil. 2;6ff. the name kýrios is given to Jesus as the response of God to his obedient suffering. It implies a position equal to that of God. That the risen Jesus is Lord is stated also in Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:36, and for parallels cf. Heb. 2:6ff.; Mt. 28:18, and the use of Ps. 110:1 (Acts 5:31; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25ff.; Col. 3:1; Eph. 1:20-21). In 1 Cor. 11:3 the world is related to God only indirectly through Christ its Head. In Col. 2:6, 10 Christ the Lord is the Head of all authority and power. In 1 Cor. 15:28 the Son exercises the lordship of God the Father in order to subject all things to him. In Rom. 14:9 lordship over humanity is central as the lordship of the crucified and risen Lord (5:6; 6:4, 9; 1 Cor. 1:23-24; Gal. 3:13, etc.). The gospel is the gospel of Christ and involves being crucified with him or baptized into him. Paul comes to Rome with the blessing of Christ, and the church is one body in Christ. Believers serve the Lord (Rom. 12:11), stand or fa11 before him (14:4ff.), and are to walk worthy of him (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27). It is the Lord who comes (1 Th. 4:15ff.), from whom Paul is absent (2 Cor. 5:6ff.), who gives powers to his servants (2 Cor. 10:8), and whose work is being done (1 Cor. 15:58). This Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). As there is one God, the Father, so there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6). It is through him that all things are, and that Christians exist as such. There is no set pattern for the alternation of Christós and kýrios. Often we find combinations such as ho kýrios Iēsoús or ho kýrios hēmōn Iēsoús (Christós). The use of the name Jesus gives emphasis and solemnity to the formula, and the personal pronoun stresses the personal relationship, which as that of the whole church implies the interrelationship of Christians (Rom. 15:30; 1 Cor. 1:2) but also their separation from others (Rom. 16:18). b. kýrios may also be used for the historical Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10, 12; 1 Th. 4:15; 1 Cor. 9:5; Heb. 2:3; Acts 11:16; 20:35). Luke has kýrios for Jesus 13 times, John has it five times, and cf. Mk. 11:3; Jn. 21:7 (though in Mk. 11:3 the reference might be to God). In address to Jesus we find didáskale, rhabbí, and rhabbouní as well as kýrie. In Mark kýrie is used only once by a Gentile woman, but the doubling in Lk. 6:46; Mt. 7:21-22 suggests a Semitic original. If didáskalos is more commonly used by Jesus himself as well as others (cf. Mk. 14:14; Mt. 10:24-25), kýrios in Luke and John has its roots in the life and work of Jesus. The resurrection is decisive, for it shows that Jesus is still the Lord and casts a new light on his teaching (cf. the use of Ps. 110:1 in Mk. 12:35ff.). The word kýrios is thus seen to be a proper one for the comprehensive lordship of Jesus. In him God acts as the kýrios does in the OT.” (Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological diction ary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (492). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.) or “One might be inclined to think that of all the designations applied to Jesus, the title “Lord” would connote as clearly as any the reality of His deity. In English translations of the gospel, this is probably true. But the Greek word kyrios, translated “Lord,” has a broader range of meaning. It can be used simply as a term of courteous respect. For example, when the chief priests and the Pharisees came to Pilate to request that a guard be placed at Jesus’ tomb, the report of their petition began with the (vocative of) address kyrie, which English translations appropriately render “Sir” (27:63). The Jews were not portrayed as according divine prerogatives to Pilate; they simply addressed him with respect. On the other hand, kyrios is customarily used as the title of God in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, so that Old Testament citations in the gospel commonly refer to God in this way. This “divine” usage is significant in light of Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees about His sonship. The question is posed this way: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” (22:42). When they rightly answered that He is David’s son, Jesus posed a conundrum for them, based on Psalm 110:1: “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ ” If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (Matt. 22:43–45). The superiority of Christ to David is certainly affirmed here, and the implication of Christ’s deity, in view of the play on “Lord,” is seen as well. That Matthew saw divine prerogatives associated with the title “Lord” are clear from two passages concerned with Jesus as the Judge who determines individuals’ destinies. According to 7:22, many will profess allegiance to Jesus and be numbered among His followers but they will ultimately be banished from His presence. “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ” (7:22–23) In this context, calling Jesus “Lord” formally identifies these individuals as followers of Christ, but ultimately this profession of faith is shown by their deeds to be false. It is noteworthy that the deeds that betray their false profession are not the miraculous and the spectacular. Their claims with regard to these deeds are not denied. Rather, they have not done the will of God (v. 21); the apparently prosaic and unspectacular deeds have been left undone. What that might mean is illustrated in part by the second passage of relevance to Jesus as Lord and ultimate Judge. The account of the judgment of the nations, compared to a separation of sheep from goats, is also a passage distinctive to Matthew’s gospel (25:31–46). Here too Jesus as the Judge of all humankind is hailed as “Lord” by both the blessed (v. 34) and the cursed (v. 41). What is cited as evidence for the reality of that profession is the attention given to those whom Jesus called “the least of these brothers of mine” (v. 40), with whom He identified so that He could speak of acts done to them as done to Him (cf. 10:42). Though the cursed hail Jesus as “Lord,” they show by their deeds that they are not His sheep. That both the blessed and the cursed acknowledge Jesus as Lord coheres with the conviction that “God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:9–11). “Lord,” therefore, is a title associated with Jesus’ exercise of divine prerogatives, suggestive of His deity. “Lord” is also the designation Matthew seemed to regard as most appropriate on the lips of disciples. In addition to the two passages discussed above, comparison with two accounts also recorded by Mark and Luke illustrates this. The first is in the account of the stilling of the storm on the sea of Galilee (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25). Although Jesus was with them, asleep in the boat, the disciples, afraid of perishing, called to Him for help. But each writer recorded a different form of address: for Luke, it is “Master” (Luke 8:24); Mark used “Teacher” (Mark 4:38); and Matthew wrote “Lord” (Matt. 8:25). The same pattern occurs in the account of Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–9; Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). At the appearance of Moses and Elijah in conversation with Jesus, Peter made a proposal. Again, each writer recorded a different form of address consistent with what was used earlier: for Luke it is “Master” (Luke 9:33); for Mark, “Rabbi,” a synonym for “Teacher” (Mark 9:5); and Matthew used “Lord” (Matt. 17:4). Matthew seems to have been saying to his readers that a most suitable way to address Jesus is to call him “Lord.” This title acknowledges both Jesus’ authority and the responsibility disciples have to obey His commands (28:20).” (Zuck, R. B. (1994; A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press.) But, I will indeed answer your questions, out of courtesy, I ask that you do the same by examining the above resources, and answering my question: “can kyrios mean more than a mere title of human respect?” to your questions… Quote who is Christ While it is a bit disturbing that someone who claims to know so much about God fails to know the answer to these questions, Christ is the Messiah, the Anointed one of Israel, the suffering servant, the Lamb of God, the one who forgives sins committed against God, the judge, the One before whom every knee will one day bow, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father. Quote who is God? God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, yet…. hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God… the attributes of God are, well, attributed, to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit… since there is only one God, yet personality is ascribed to all 3 in such a way as to have them spoken of as separate personas, what best explains this situation is that God is triune. As far as the first question goes, that is simple, the head of Christ is God. But where you are being simplistic, is in thinking that this is somehow some kind of profound objection against the Trinity… in the human family, the husband is head, but this in no way means that the husband is necessarily superior in regard to his being… his ontos…. to his wife, now is he? Of course not. And so too, just because the head of Christ is God the Father, it equally does not follow that because the Father is the head of Christ, that He is ontologically superior to the Son or the Holy Spirit. As human beings, they are equal, but they have different roles to play in the economy of the family. So too with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are equal to one another, but they have differing roles in the role of salvation. its as simple as that. blessings, ken

The scripture does not say that the Head of Christ is God the Father. It says that the Head of Christ is GOD

so why did you add “the Father” when it says The head of Christ is God.

Your belief about Jesus is very Hindu and their Trinity Doctrine predates yo
urs. Your Christ sounds like Krishna.

I am not being disparaging, I just don't know if you realize that to understand true Christianity you would have to understand Judaism but to understand what you believe to be Christianity you would have to understand Hinduism.

You do understand that after the Romans and other paganistic and heathen cultures started converting to Christianity it became a blend of original and pagan ideas, right?

What you believe about Chist is exactly identical to Krishna

The idea of the trinity has caused many of people to be confused, it is not confusing to me because it is not what the bible or Jesus teaches us to believe.
The bible teaches directly that Jesus is the “Son” of God
That God sent Jesus that whosoever believe in him should not perish
That Jesus is an obedient servant/son who worships God in the sense as Abraham, Isaac and Moses
That Jesus is the Christ and is a priest in the order of Melchesidec
That Jesus is the mediator between God and Men and Jesus is a Man born of a Woman who was a virgin

The people who always seem confused are the ones who insist God came in the flesh which is not biblical but very Hindu
God is 3 persons which once again is very Hindu .

Hindu precedes Christianity. The “Lord Krishna” Died in the year 3600 BC but most Christians believe in a Hindu type of Christ, look for yourself:

Below is what hindu's have always believed about Krishna even before Christ came into the world the person who wrote the things below even show some comparisons.

Krishna is called both a God and the Son of God.
Krishna was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Krishna is called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

Krishna claimed: “I am the Resurrection.”
Krishna was “without sin.”

Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.”

Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.

Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.

Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Krishna and Jesus were both saviors of mankind and avatars of God who have returned to earth at an especially critical time in the lives of their people. They were the incarnates of the Divine Being Himself in human form to teach human beings divine love, divine power, divine wisdom, and lead the benighted world towards the light of God.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

The fact is true Christianity was hard to maintain as the gentiles started converting. Most of the things you tell me you believe are what I would call Hindu or Egyptian beliefs.

I don't disparage the belief as such, but if someone wants to understand what was really taught one has to know that what they think they know now, did not come from the source they claim. You may not know that much about world religous history and because you were taught about your religion from a bias position you assume you know it but the truth is that the root of your religion is in Judaism so to even comprehend Jesus you would have to understand Judaism as knowing what a Jew believes is knowing what Jesus taught.

Whether it be Judaism or Islam what they both agree on is that some forms of Christianity are ignorant about what they worship. The bible even agrees with them as God calls them Foolish.

Jews are provoked as God said they would be when some Christians worship what they don't understand and call it God.

Once you understand that God did not want the Israelites to have a King you will understand what God has done.

[kerwin]

epistemaniac wrote:

Quote

I did not say that “lord” or kyrios always means Yahweh and/or Jehovah, only that in some cases it does, and in those cases, shows the deity of Christ.

So what is your system for determining when it does and when it does not?

[Author]

Posts