- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 08 2013,13:47) Bo,
Please don't pretend that the word “God” has only one meaning and is just a proper name.
The word “God” can refer to a hunk of wood by some, a mythological figure by others, even a person that people worship or a thing that a person worships. Entertainment, sports, materialistic things…all of these types of things can be a 'God/Gods' to people.
For me, God in the fullest sense of the term is our creator and the eternal, self-existent Father and Son together with their Spirit belonging to the name of YHVH.Sorry it has been a while.
Niceto hear from you. The word God can refer to anything if the person doing the reference believes such other things exist as God but I am not talking about the degradation of the word I am talking about the ACTUAL MEANING of what it is to be GOD i.e. THE SUPREME in AUTHORITY Jesu doesn't even fit that description his authority was given to him. No one GIVES AUTHORITY to THE SUPREME BEING because ALL THINGS BELONG TO HIM.God can destroy Jesus if HE Chose to but Jesus can not do ANYTHING without God according to Jesus:
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.Emmanuel…”God with us”
You miss the beauty of Jehovah of hosts of Isaiah 8 becoming flesh-Emmanuel…BECOMING lower than the angels and completely relying on Jehovah, His Father in heaven.It is the gospel that you are not receiving. It is really beautiful and powerful. God, the Son came to tabernacle with us and died according to the flesh for us so that we could have eternal fellowship with the Father AND the Son.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 08 2013,14:40) Emmanuel…”God with us”
You miss the beauty of Jehovah of hosts of Isaiah 8 becoming flesh-Emmanuel…BECOMING lower than the angels and completely relying on Jehovah, His Father in heaven.It is the gospel that you are not receiving. It is really beautiful and powerful. God, the Son came to tabernacle with us and died according to the flesh for us so that we could have eternal fellowship with the Father AND the Son.
Think about what you are saying, even if you were right, how would it be beautiful or powerful to be killed but not even really be ableto stay dead? Nothing was lost or given up andhow would torture and murder give us etermal fellowship? You seriously believe all tha is needed to fellowship with God? If so why didn't God let Abraham kill his son?Hi Bo,
Quote Think about what you are saying, even if you were right, how would it be beautiful or powerful to be killed but not even really be ableto stay dead? Wouldn't you consider it supernatural if someone that you knew and that had died and was buried, suddenly appeared days later and made you breakfast and ate with you? Or would that be expected?
Quote Nothing was lost or given up… Why do you say that nothing was lost or given up?
Quote how would torture and murder give us eternal fellowship? That is God's choice to decide what makes atonement, whether or not you understand it, agree with it, or otherwise.
How does killing a lamb and spreading it's blood on door posts keep the spirit of death from killing the firstborn inside the home but kills the firstborn in the homes without the blood of a lamb on the door posts?
God had established the shedding of blood of specific things, in a specific way, as an acceptable form of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Do you believe that the Bible teaches that? Yes or No
Lev 19:22
And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering before Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned: and the sin which he hath sinned shall be forgiven him.Lev 17
10‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ 12“Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ 13“So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.14“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’
Quote If so why didn't God let Abraham kill his son? He never intended for Abraham to actually kill his son…He was just testing Abraham's faith. Abraham's son's purpose was to bear offspring and be a forefather of Israel, not to be a sacrifice for sins.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2013,15:11) Hi Bo, Quote Think about what you are saying, even if you were right, how would it be beautiful or powerful to be killed but not even really be ableto stay dead? Wouldn't you consider it supernatural if someone that you knew and that had died and was buried, suddenly appeared days later and made you breakfast and ate with you? Or would that be expected?
Quote Nothing was lost or given up… Why do you say that nothing was lost or given up?
Quote how would torture and murder give us eternal fellowship? That is God's choice to decide what makes atonement, whether or not you understand it, agree with it, or otherwise.
How does killing a lamb and spreading it's blood on door posts keep the spirit of death from killing the firstborn inside the home but kills the firstborn in the homes without the blood of a lamb on the door posts?
God had established the shedding of blood of specific things, in a specific way, as an acceptable form of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Do you believe that the Bible teaches that? Yes or No
Lev 19:22
And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering before Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned: and the sin which he hath sinned shall be forgiven him.Lev 17
10‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ 12“Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ 13“So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.14“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’
Quote If so why didn't God let Abraham kill his son? He never intended for Abraham to actually kill his son…He was just testing Abraham's faith. Abraham's son's purpose was to bear offspring and be a forefather of Israel, not to be a sacrifice for sins.
Phaps HE never intended for Jesus to be killed either. testing the faith of Jesus to bear offspring of Faith and not a sacrifice for sinsHi Bo,
I have been rather sporadic at posting…sorry. I have had some changes in my commitments and routine.God DID intend Jesus to suffer and die to conquer death, so your point is moot.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 21 2013,06:00) Hi Bo,
I have been rather sporadic at posting…sorry. I have had some changes in my commitments and routine.God DID intend Jesus to suffer and die to conquer death, so your point is moot.
But sacrifice does not please God so why would God do what displeases Himself?Jesus was an offering…He offered Himself, and then His Father sent Him to follow through with that offering.
Bo,
Here is an interesting article about the scapegoat that you had questions about:Quote
Yahweh and AzazelThe Day of Atonement ritual provides a fascinating convergence of all the ideas we’ve discussed to this point in the chapter: holiness, realm distinction, restoration, sacred and profane space, and Yahweh and his family versus the nations and their elohim.
If you’ve at least flipped through Leviticus on your way to another book of the Bible you may know that the Day of Atonement ritual is described in Leviticus 16. Part of that description goes like this:
7 Then [Aaron] shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. 9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, 10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. (Lev. 16:7-10; ESV)
Why is one of the goats “for Azazel”? Who or what is “Azazel”? Here’s where things get a little strange, unless you are acquainted with the cosmic geographical ideas we’ve been talking about.
The word “Azazel” in the Hebrew text can be translated “the goat that goes away.” This is the justification for the common “scapegoat” translation (NIV, NASB, KJV). The scapegoat, so the translator has it, symbolically carries the sins of the people away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness. Seems simple enough.
However, “Azazel” could also be a proper name. In Lev. 16:8 one goat is “for Yahweh” while the other goat is “for Azazel.” Since Yahweh is a proper name and the goats are described in the same way, Hebrew parallelism suggests Azazel is also a proper name, which is why more recent translations, sensitive to the literary character of the Hebrew text, read “Azazel” and not “scapegoat” (ESV, NRSV, NJPS). So what’s the big deal?
The point of importance is that Azazel is the name of a demon in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Jewish books. In fact, one scroll (4Q 180, 1:8) Azazel is the leader of the angels that sinned in Genesis 6:1-4. The same description appears in the book of 1 Enoch (8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2). Recall that in Intertestamental Judaism, the offending sons of God from Genesis 6 were believed to have been imprisoned in a Pit or Abyss in the Netherworld. As we saw in Chapter 6, he apostle Peter uses the Greek term Tartarus for this place (2 Peter 2:4). Tartarus is translated “Hell” in some English versions, but the term actually refers to the lowest place in the Netherworld, which was conceived as being under the earth humans walk upon. In Greek thought, Tartarus was the prison for the divine giant Titans defeated by the Olympian gods. In Jewish theology, Azazel’s realm was somewhere out in the desert, outside the confines of holy ground. It was a place associated with supernatural evil.
I believe Azazel is best taken as a proper name of a demonic entity. In the Day of Atonement ritual, the goat for Yahweh—the goat that was sacrificed—purifies the people of Israel and the Tabernacle/Temple. Sins were “atoned for” and what had been ritually unclean was sanctified and made holy. But purification only described part of what atonement meant. The point of the goat for Azazel was not that something was owed to the demonic realm, as though a ransom was being paid. The goat for Azazel banished the sins of the Israelites to the realm outside Israel. Why? Because the ground on which Yahweh had his dwelling was holy; the ground outside the parameters of the Israelite camp (or, nation, once the people were in the Land) had been consigned to fallen, demonic deities back at Babel. Sin could not be tolerated in the camp of Israel, for it was holy ground. Sins had to be “transported” to where evil belonged—the territory outside Israel under the control of gods set over the pagan nations. The high priest was not sacrificing to Azazel. Rather, Azazel was getting what belonged to him: the ugly sinfulness of the nation.
Taking Azazel as a proper name explains another weird statement in the very next chapter of Leviticus (17:7): “So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore” (ESV). The Day of Atonement ritual was part of the solution to the practice of some Israelites to sacrifice to “goat demons.” We are not told why they did this, but the period of bondage in Egypt may have introduced them to deities identified with goat sacrifices, or they conceptually thought the demons of the wilderness needed to be kept at bay while on the way to the Promised Land. The latter has an Egyptian flavor to it, since Egyptians considered territory outside Egypt to be full of perils and chaotic forces. For Israelites, such sacrifices were ineffective and could descend to idolatry. Restrictions and prohibitions had to be made with respect to sacrifice. All sacrifices needed to occur at the tent of meeting (Lev. 17:1-7), and the Day of Atonement ritual was the only sanctioned “expulsion of sins” ritual.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2013,08:01) Jesus was an offering…He offered Himself, and then His Father sent Him to follow through with that offering.
He said it was not his will so when did he offer?Before He was sent as flesh.
Philippians 2
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 17 2013,13:17) Before He was sent as flesh. Philippians 2
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This does not say he OFFERED himself it says he was OBEDIENT that is not the same thing, he definitely said “Not my will”Hebrews 7:27
He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.Can you admit that the Bible says that He 'offered' Himself?
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 20 2013,22:06) Hebrews 7:27
He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.Can you admit that the Bible says that He 'offered' Himself?
Yes, but that does not mean it was his will as I said he was OBEDIENT to offer himself but not willing to offer himself which is why he said “NOT MY WILL” Can you admit the Bible says Jesus said “Not My Will”Where doe is say that He was not willing to offer Himself, Bo?
Perhaps it was just the kind of or the extent of torture that He was about to face, not the death itself that He wasn't willing to take. The bigger picture is that He did take something that He didn't want to take because the Father's will was more important than His own.
Please answer the bolded question. Thanks!
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,14:39) Where doe is say that He was not willing to offer Himself, Bo? Perhaps it was just the kind of or the extent of torture that He was about to face, not the death itself that He wasn't willing to take. The bigger picture is that He did take something that He didn't want to take because the Father's will was more important than His own.
Please answer the bolded question. Thanks!
New International Version
Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.Notice here Jesus is calling “The Father” Lord of Heaven and earth which totally goes against your theory of Jesus being “Lord” and The Father being “God”.
Bo,
Thanks for giving me those verses. They prove that it was 'this cup' that He wanted taken from Him. Upon further investigation, we can know that it wasn't the 'offering Himself' for a sacrificial death that He was not willing to go through. The way we can be sure of that is by what the cup WAS NOT.Here Jesus tells James and John, sons of Zebedee that they will drink of the SAME cup as He would:
Matt 20
20Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. 21And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” 22But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”So that proves that the 'cup' Jesus wanted to be spared from was not being an offering for the sacrifice to atone for sin because James and John were not an offering for the sacrifice to atone for sin. Neither did both of them die as a martyr, apparently just James did. See this:
http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.htmlQuote James, Son of Zebedee James was the brother of John, the disciple “that Jesus loved”.
According to the Book of Acts in the New Testament, James was killed by Herod:
Act 12:1 And at that time Herod the king threw on his hands to oppress some of those of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.This is confirmed by Hippolytus:
James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.
Eusebius descibed more precisely what was cut off of James:
First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded… (Book 3, Chapter 5)
Yep… James' head was cut…
John, brother of James and son of Zebedee
John was one of the few disciples that did not die a cruel death, but of “old age”.
Eusebius discusses the reason that John wrote his Gospel:
“Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity…And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.” (Book 3, Chapter 24)
According to Hippolytus, John was banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, and later died in Ephesus:
John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.
That proves that 'the cup' that Jesus was about to drink was not what you claim.
Quote Notice here Jesus is calling “The Father” Lord of Heaven and earth which totally goes against your theory of Jesus being “Lord” and The Father being “God”. As you are probably aware, the word 'Lord' and 'God' are interchangeable. Both are referred to with both titles/names. When they are both together in the same sentence, the Father is called our one 'God' and Jesus is called our one 'Lord.'
Jesus is called the “Lord' of all, btw.
Acts 10
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. 36“The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— 37you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, 41not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”He is also called 'God' several times, for example:
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 08 2013,05:35) Bo,
Thanks for giving me those verses. They prove that it was 'this cup' that He wanted taken from Him. Upon further investigation, we can know that it wasn't the 'offering Himself' for a sacrificial death that He was not willing to go through. The way we can be sure of that is by what the cup WAS NOT.Here Jesus tells James and John, sons of Zebedee that they will drink of the SAME cup as He would:
Matt 20
20Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. 21And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” 22But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”So that proves that the 'cup' Jesus wanted to be spared from was not being an offering for the sacrifice to atone for sin because James and John were not an offering for the sacrifice to atone for sin. Neither did both of them die as a martyr, apparently just James did. See this:
http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.htmlQuote James, Son of Zebedee James was the brother of John, the disciple “that Jesus loved”.
According to the Book of Acts in the New Testament, James was killed by Herod:
Act 12:1 And at that time Herod the king threw on his hands to oppress some of those of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.This is confirmed by Hippolytus:
James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.
Eusebius descibed more precisely what was cut off of James:
First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded… (Book 3, Chapter 5)
Yep… James' head was cut…
John, brother of James and son of Zebedee
John was one of the few disciples that did not die a cruel death, but of “old age”.
Eusebius discusses the reason that John wrote his Gospel:
“Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity…And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.” (Book 3, Chapter 24)
According to Hippolytus, John was banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, and later died in Ephesus:
John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.
That proves that 'the cup' that Jesus was about to drink was not what you claim.
Quote Notice here Jesus is calling “The Father” Lord of Heaven and earth which totally goes against your theory of Jesus being “Lord” and The Father being “God”. As you are probably aware, the word 'Lord' and 'God' are interchangeable. Both are referred to with both titles/names. When they are both together in the same sentence, the Father is called our one 'God' and Jesus is called our one 'Lord.'
Jesus is called the “Lord' of all, btw.
Acts 10
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. 36“The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— 37you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, 41not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”He is also called 'God' several times, for example:
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
You just cannot see the actual facts:Jesus is a servant of God
Bo,
I have no problem with the fact that the Son who is Jehovah of hosts in Isaiah 8, being a servant to His Father, Jehovah. That doesn't make Him of a different kind than the Father.Can you admit that Jesus was not asking to be spared from being an offering for sin through death when He asked for the cup to be removed from Him?
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 09 2013,15:43) Bo,
I have no problem with the fact that the Son who is Jehovah of hosts in Isaiah 8, being a servant to His Father, Jehovah. That doesn't make Him of a different kind than the Father.Can you admit that Jesus was not asking to be spared from being an offering for sin through death when He asked for the cup to be removed from Him?
No, because he was asking to be spared otherwise why would he have said it was not his will?As far as being a different kind than his father obviously Jesus said his father was a greater kind than him
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
