My lord and my god!

[NickHassan]

Hi tt,
David was a prophet.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 06 2009,05:50)

Hi tt, David was a prophet.

David prophesied that HIS lord would be exalted to God's right hand. This does not deny that He was David's Lord then. David said,

Quote

The Lord IS my Shepherd.

Jesus said,

Quote

I am the good Shepherd

Ezekiel said,

Quote

There shall be ONE shepherd

If the Father is the one and only God then Jesus is the one and only Shepherd. I have found that those who say “one God” also say “two shepherds.” Not too consistent now is it? If “one God” means one God then “one shepherd” means one shepherd.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
For us there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ.
God is not divided into three parts.
God is one.

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Jesus was given functional equality with God in the same way the the Pharoah gave Joseph such rights.
But of course as Heb 7 says the lesser is blessed by the greater.
Jesus told us the Father was greater than him.

So why do you think he is that God?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 06 2009,08:48)

Hi TT, Jesus was given functional equality with God in the same way the the Pharoah gave Joseph such rights. But of course as Heb 7 says the lesser is blessed by the greater. Jesus told us the Father was greater than him. So why do you think he is that God?

Jesus said that the Father was greater than Him while He was in the flesh. This was why He told His disciples that it was needful for them that He to go back to the Father. It is a leap in logic to conclude that because the Father was greater than Him then that it is still true today. Jesus anticipated that He would return to the glory He had with the Father before the world began.

God said in Isaiah that He will not share His glory with another. Yet He shares His glory with Jesus. Ergo….

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
So part of God was less than another part of your god?
Is God divided?
God is one.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 06 2009,09:37)

Hi TT, So part of God was less than another part of your god? Is God divided? God is one.

God said in Isaiah that He will not share His glory with another. Jesus said that He shared glory with the Father before the world began. He anticipated that He would share God's glory again. Please explain how the Father could share His glory with Jesus seeing that He will not share His glory with another.

thinker

good night. I am done for today.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Did he?
Please be accurate.
He said he had glory with the Father and did not say he shared the Father's glory

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ June 05 2009,05:30)

Paladin said: Quote Are yoou unable to read? Or is it that you just have poor comprehension? I said nothing about Jesus stumbling upon his name. If this is the way you respond to a post, you will hear no more from me. I am able to read fine. You are not able to own up to what you said. You used “stumbling on a bag of gold” as an analogy. Do you think people are stupid here? thinker

Paladin said:

Quote

Are you unable to read? Or is it that you just have poor comprehension? I said nothing about Jesus stumbling upon his name. If this is the way you respond to a post, you will hear no more from me. (thinker) I am able to read fine. You are not able to own up to what you said. You used “stumbling on a bag of gold” as an analogy. Do you think people are stupid here?

(Paladin) You need to learn what an “analogy” is. An analogy is a comparison of two similar things to make a point, for example, the heart, and a pump. Both function to drive fluid through a system, and both have similarities that can be compared by “analogy” to make a point.

WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:

Quote

I think we may be closer on this one than previous posts, The problem remains, if you walk through the desert and stumble upon a sack of Gold, and pick it up, you have “obtained” it, but you have not “earned” it. Jesus “obtained” alright, but not by earning it. He obtained it by “inheritance.” People who obtain something by inheritance, do not “earn” it, they “inherit” it. Their Father or Mother “earned” it.

What “thinker” got from what I said.
You said “Jesus stumbled upon his name”

I said “YOU” were walking, and “YOU” stumbled on a bag of gold.” ARE YOU JESUS?

It was not an example of how Jesus got his name, it was a comparison to show the difference between “obtaining” and
“earning.” YOU said he “earned” his name, then give a verse that says he “inherited” it. I used an example to show that “obtaining” does not mean “earned.” YOU com[letely missed my point, because you did not correctly present what I said. I call that bad reading comprehension, which you deny.

Then you throw yourself on my mercy by asking “Do you think people are stupid here?”

Hmmmmm!!! I'm thinking. give me a moment…!!!!

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 06 2009,10:08)

Hi TT, Did he? Please be accurate. He said he had glory with the Father and did not say he shared the Father's glory

You're just parsing words Nick

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
God does not share His glory with another.
Jesus is not that God Who is his father.
Jesus is the son of God

[KangarooJack]

Paladin said:

Quote

I believe John tells it best, when he tells us “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” [John 20:30-31]

This is circular reasoning. The Son of God is God.

Paladin said:

Quote

The problem you are having is that you are trying to defend the position stated by the Jews who murdered Christ by their testimony; which testimony they changed at his trial.

How can you say that the Jews changed their testimony at Jesus' trial when John 5:18 says that they wanted to kill Him for calling God His Father. He referred to Himself as the “Son” several times in that encounter with the Jews. Yet you say it was later on at His trial they figured out that He was only claiming to be the Son of God? You are denying that Jesus' claim to be the son of God was blasphemy to them,

Quote

The Jews answered him [Pilate]. “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God (John 19:7)

Paladin said:

Quote

And you are adding a word to Jesus' own testimony. He did NOT say “God is my OWN father.” So quit claiming Jesus said God was his “own” Father.

I am adding a word you say? Jesus did indeed claim that God was His OWN Father,

Quote

For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only for breaking the sabbath, but He was even calling God His OWN Father, making Himself equal with God (NIV)

The Greek “idiov” (his own) is in the Greek text.

Paladin said:

Quote

THE JEWS WOULD HAVE KILLED JESUS NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID.

Point well taken.

Paladin said:

Quote

But the Jews had made the same claim, that God is their Father.

Show where a Jew claimed to be God's “only begotten” Son or that God was his OWN Father.

Paladin said:

Quote

WHAT JESUS SAID “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS SAID JESUS' WORDS MEANT “thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33 WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORDS MEANT “I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36]

Ergo, the Son of God is God.

Paladin said:

Quote

So at his trial, the Jews agree with Jesus about what his words meant. But the thinker agrees with the Jews accusation which they later retracted by their testimony.

John explicitly says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for calling God His OWN Father (John 5:18). This was BEFORE the trial. What's this stuff about a “retraction”? To the Jew and also to John was a Jew the Son of God was equal to God.

Paladin said:

Quote

Why did you refuse to deal with the issue in my post? (Paladin) None of the apostles said to Thomas, “God is risen.” They testified “We have seen the Lord.”[John 20:25]

This is circular. The term “Lord” and God” are the same. Paul said that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is “Lord.” This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 45 where GOD says that “every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess.” So Paul is applying the prophecy to Jesus.

Paladin said:

Quote

Thomas already KNEW it was God who would raise him from the dead. “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? 19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” [Luke 9:18-22] So Thomas, upon seeing resurrected Christ made the only connection he could between what he saw and what he had already been told to expect; God working a miracle to raise Thomas' Lord.

Circular again. To the Jew the titles “Christ of God”, “Son of man”, and “Lord” were ALL divine titles.

Paladin said:

Quote

Jesus did not say he would raise himself from the dead. He said “I will raise it up” which is a reference to his body, which is the church.

John's narrative clearly contradicts Paladin. John said,

Quote

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said.

Paladin said:

Quote

He did NOT raise himself, because NO MAN could possibly do that.

Jesus went down to hades ALIVE. So He could raise Himself from the dead. I thought Paladin believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Would this be too hard for the Son of God? Again, John's narrative contradicts Paladin,

Quote

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said.

This is all I had time to do today. Paladin PLEASE shorten your posts. It is not necessary to write a whole treatise man!

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Jesus died and his spirit left him at calvary[mt27]
He is yet alive in the given Spirit of God

[KangarooJack]

To All,
I duplicate part of a reply I posted to Paladin today to bring special attention to it.

Paladin said:

Quote

Jesus did not say he would raise himself from the dead. He said “I will raise it up” which is a reference to his body, which is the church.

John's narrative clearly contradicts Paladin. John said,

Quote

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said.

Paladin said:

Quote

He did NOT raise himself, because NO MAN could possibly do that.

Jesus went down to hades ALIVE. So He could raise Himself from the dead. I thought Paladin believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Would this be too hard for the Son of God?

Again, John's narrative contradicts Paladin,

Quote

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said.

Paladin's view that Jesus was talking about His body the church has absolutely no basis whatsoever. John said that when Jesus had risen from the dead that His disciples recalled that He had spoken this to them. Paladin has quite an imagination to say the least.

thinker

[942767]

Hi thethinker:

Jesus was dead. Does a dead man raise himself from the dead?

This is what the Apostle Paul states about his resurrection.

Quote

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

And the Apostle Peter:

Quote

Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[KangarooJack]

Quote (942767 @ June 06 2009,14:20)

Hi thethinker: Jesus was dead.  Does a dead man raise himself from the dead? This is what the Apostle Paul states about his resurrection. Quote Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.   And the Apostle Peter: Quote Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.   Love in Christ, Marty

Marty.
Please explain John 2:19-21. Trinitarians do not deny that God raised Jesus from the dead. They say that each person of the trinity participated in Christ's resurrection. Jesus said that He would raise up His body in three days. Paladin says that He was referring to His body the Church. But the narrative says this,

Quote

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said.

Please explain this.

thanks,

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
How many verses say Jesus raised himself? Are you thinking of when God spoke through him in Jn2?

Now count the number of times God was said to be the One Who raised him.

He died and the dead do not raise themselves.

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ June 06 2009,12:32)

Paladin said: Quote I believe John tells it best, when he tells us “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” [John 20:30-31] This is circular reasoning. The Son of God is God. Paladin said: Quote The problem you are having is that you are trying to defend the position stated by the Jews who murdered Christ by their testimony; which testimony they changed at his trial. How can you say that the Jews changed their testimony at Jesus' trial when John 5:18 says that they wanted to kill Him for calling God His Father. He referred to Himself as the “Son” several times in that encounter with the Jews. Yet you say it was later on at His trial they figured out that He was only claiming to be the Son of God? You are denying that Jesus' claim to be the son of God was blasphemy to them, Quote The Jews answered him [Pilate]. “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God (John 19:7) Paladin said: Quote And you are adding a word to Jesus' own testimony. He did NOT say “God is my OWN father.” So quit claiming Jesus said God was his “own” Father. I am adding a word you say? Jesus did indeed claim that God was His OWN Father, Quote For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only for breaking the sabbath, but He was even calling God His OWN Father, making Himself equal with God (NIV) The Greek “idiov” (his own) is in the Greek text. Paladin said: Quote THE JEWS WOULD HAVE KILLED JESUS NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID. Point well taken. Paladin said: Quote But the Jews had made the same claim, that God is their Father. Show where a Jew claimed to be God's “only begotten” Son or that God was his OWN Father. Paladin said: Quote WHAT JESUS SAID “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS SAID JESUS' WORDS MEANT “thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33 WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORDS MEANT “I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36] Ergo, the Son of God is God. Paladin said: Quote So at his trial, the Jews agree with Jesus about what his words meant. But the thinker agrees with the Jews accusation which they later retracted by their testimony. John explicitly says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for calling God His OWN Father (John 5:18). This was BEFORE the trial. What's this stuff about a “retraction”? To the Jew and also to John was a Jew the Son of God was equal to God. Paladin said: Quote Why did you refuse to deal with the issue in my post? (Paladin) None of the apostles said to Thomas, “God is risen.” They testified “We have seen the Lord.”[John 20:25] This is circular. The term “Lord” and God” are the same. Paul said that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is “Lord.” This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 45 where GOD says that “every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess.” So Paul is applying the prophecy to Jesus. Paladin said: Quote Thomas already KNEW it was God who would raise him from the dead. “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? 19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” [Luke 9:18-22] So Thomas, upon seeing resurrected Christ made the only connection he could between what he saw and what he had already been told to expect; God working a miracle to raise Thomas' Lord. Circular again. To the Jew the titles “Christ of God”, “Son of man”, and “Lord” were ALL divine titles. Paladin said: Quote Jesus did not say he would raise himself from the dead. He said “I will raise it up” which is a reference to his body, which is the church. John's narrative clearly contradicts Paladin. John said, Quote Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said. Paladin said: Quote He did NOT raise himself, because NO MAN could possibly do that. Jesus went down to hades ALIVE. So He could raise Himself from the dead. I thought Paladin believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Would this be too hard for the Son of God? Again, John&#3 9;s narrative contradicts Paladin, Quote Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said. This is all I had time to do today. Paladin PLEASE shorten your posts. It is not necessary to write a whole treatise man! thinker

Paladin said:

Quote

I believe John tells it best, when he tells us “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” [John 20:30-31] (thinker) This is circular reasoning. The Son of God is God.

I suppose you think the son of Phillip of Macedonia was Phillip of Macedonia. I have a newsbreak for you. Phillip of Macedonia's son was Alexander the Great. Cannot you read scripture? 2 John 1:3 “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, THE SON OF THE FATHER, in truth and love.”

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

If the Father is the only true God [John 17:1,3], and the son of God is the son of the only true God [John 17:1], then he is not the only true God, but is HIS SON. [2 John 1:3]

Paladin said:

Quote

The problem you are having is that you are trying to defend the position stated by the Jews who murdered Christ by their testimony; which testimony they changed at his trial. (thinker) How can you say that the Jews changed their testimony at Jesus' trial when John 5:18 says that they wanted to kill Him for calling God His Father. He referred to Himself as the “Son” several times in that encounter with the Jews. Yet you say it was later on at His trial they figured out that He was only claiming to be the Son of God? You are denying that Jesus' claim to be the son of God was blasphemy to them,

(Paladin)
Easy. Because they changed their testimony at his trial. I consider that to be evidence that they changed their testimony at his trial.

The question is not “What is every word the Jews uttered in John 5:18;” the question is what was the testimony that was different in John 19:7? Why don't you try to focus on what I said instead of trying to twist everything I say into your own advantage?

What the Jews said in John 5:18; “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

How the Jews changed their testimony at his trial by what they said in John 19:7;
“He made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7)

I did not say they changed their testimony about breaking the sabbath, and I did not say they changed their testimony about calling God his Father; I said they changed their testimony about who he MADE HIMSELF. Perhaps a remedial course in reading with comprehension would help you.

Paladin said:

Quote

And you are adding a word to Jesus' own testimony. He did NOT say “God is my OWN father.” So quit claiming Jesus said God was his “own” Father. I am adding a word you say? Jesus did indeed claim that God was His OWN Father, Quote For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only for breaking the sabbath, but He was even calling God His OWN Father, making Himself equal with God (NIV) The Greek “idiov” (his own) is in the Greek text.

o.k. You have just set the standard for exegeting the passages. When I do the same, to ptove my point, You have no more right to object. I give you your point. If it is in the Greek text, it is officially what is meant. Now, show me the “trinity,” “triune,” “three-in-one,” “Theos 'o huios,” “omoousian” or any other Greek word that means the same. Remember, if it is not in the Greek it is added, and therefore not allowed.

Paladin said:

Quote

But the Jews had made the same claim, that God is their Father. (thinker) Show where a Jew claimed to be God's “only begotten” Son or that God was his OWN Father.

(Paladin) YOU show ME where that was an issue in the reference material under consideration. In fact, You show ME where Jesus ever made the claim to be God's “only-begotten” son.

Paladin said:

Quote

WHAT JESUS SAID “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS SAID JESUS' WORDS MEANT “thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33 WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORDS MEANT “I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36] (thinker) Ergo, the Son of God is God.

Don't go stupid on me thinker. Who is the son of Phillip of Macedonia? Was it Phillip of Macedonia, or was it Alexander the Great? Even Paul said he is in “a form of God.” You cannot be both the thing AND the form of the thing. Being the son of God qualifies him to be a “form of God,” but does not make him God. And remember the standard YOU set above. Since the article in not in the Greek, you cannot add “the” to “form of God.” It is anarthrous. Jesus “being in a form of God…”[Phil 2:6]

Paladin said:

Quote

So at his trial, the Jews agree with Jesus about what his words meant. But the thinker agrees with the Jews accusation which they later retracted by their testimony. John explicitly says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for calling God His OWN Father (John 5:18). This was BEFORE the trial. What's this stuff about a “retraction”? To the Jew and also to John was a Jew the Son of God was equal to God.

Absolutely fallacious. Do you not know the scriptures at all?

GOD SAID ISRAEL IS GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON
Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah [the LORD], Israel is my huios [son], even my prwtotokos [firstborn]:

GOD SAID DAVID WILL BE MADE GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON
Psa 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: 21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him. 22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. 23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him. 24 But my faithfulness
and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted. 25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. 26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art MY FATHER, MY GOD, and the rock of my salvation. 27 Also I WILL MAKE HIM MY PRWTOTOKOS [FIRSTBORN], higher than the kings of the earth.

GOD SAID EPHRAIM IS GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON
Jeremiah 31:7 For thus saith JEHOVAH [the LORD]; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. 8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I AM A FATHER TO ISRAEL, and Ephraim is my PRWTOTOKOS [firstborn.]

THIS IS THE ONLY VERSE THAT SPEAKS OF JESUS BEING GOD'S “FIRSTBORN SON.”
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son (Jesus), that he (Jesus) might be the PRWTOTOKOS [firstborn] among many brethren.

So, please, do not pretend to tell me what the Jews thought being God's son meant. They did not try to kill Israel, David, or Ephraim for being called God's firstborn son. Or are you going to now tell me it meant something else? The Jews never though Israel, David, or Ephraim are God.

Did the Jews seek to kill David, thinking David was calling himself God's son, therefore equal to God? NO!
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Paladin said:

Quote

Why did you refuse to deal with the issue in my post? (Paladin) None of the apostles said to Thomas, “God is risen.” They testified “We have seen the Lord.”[John 20:25] (thinker) This is circular. The term “Lord” and God” are the same. Paul said that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is “Lord.” This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 45 where GOD says that “every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess.” So Paul is applying the prophecy to Jesus.

(Paladin) What total unmitigated nonsense. Jesus is Lord of something God is not the God of, therefore, Lord is NOT the same as God. It CANNOT be.

Paladin said:

Quote

Thomas already KNEW it was God who would raise him from the dead. “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? 19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” [Luke 9:18-22] So Thomas, upon seeing resurrected Christ made the only connection he could between what he saw and what he had already been told to expect; God working a miracle to raise Thomas' Lord. (thinker) Circular again. To the Jew the titles “Christ of God”, “Son of man”, and “Lord” were ALL divine titles.

SON OF MAN IS NOT A DIVINE TITLE – GOD IS NOT THE SON OF MAN, THEREFORE THE SON OF MAN IS NOT GOD
Numbers 23:19 GOD IS NOT a man, that he should lie; neither THE SON OF MAN, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

LORD IS NOT A DIVINE TITLE
Genesis 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my Adown [lord] being old also?

Genesis 23:6 Hear us, my Adown [lord]: thou art a Elohiym [mighty] prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.

Genesis 24:12 And he said, O [kurios] LORD [theos] God of my [kurios] master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my [kurios] master Abraham.

Genesis 24:35 And the [kurios] LORD hath blessed my [kurios] master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.

Isaiah 26:13 O Jehovah our Elohiym [(kurios)LORD our God], other Adown (kurios)[lords] beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name.

1 Samuel 1:14 And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. 15 And Hannah answered and said, No, my Adown [lord], I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before Jehovah [the LORD].

1 Samuel 20:38 And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his Adown [master].

“CHRIST OF GOD” IS NOT A DIVINE TITLE
“Xriston tou Theou” means “THE ANOINTING OF HIS GOD,” AND IS TRANSLATED “Christ of God in Luke 9:20, “He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, Ton Xriston tou Theou [The Christ of God].”

Jesus is designated “The “Christ of God,” [Ton Xriston tou Theou]; which means “The anointed of his God.” Jesus is not the first to hold such a lofty title, nor is he the only man ever so designated.

Under the Mosaic dispensation, or Old Covenant, the High Priest of God was designated
[Xriston tou Theou], “The anointed of God.” When the High Priest was anointed, it was for his lifetime. And he was (Xriston tou Theou) “the Christ of God” till he died. His office ended at his death.

Lev 21:12 “And he the priest that is chief among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the anointed one, and he having been consecrated to put on the garments, shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments; 11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body, neither shall he defile himself for his father, or his mother; 12 And he shall not go out of the sanctuary, and he shall not profane the sanctuary of his God; because the holy [Xriston tou Theou] anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the Lord.” [Septuagint]

The Hebrew account puts it slightly different; “for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him:”

King David spoke of King Saul to Abner, calling Saul “ton kurion sou ton basilea” [thy Lord the king]; and ton “Xriston Kuriou,” The anointed of the Lord, which offices Saul held till his death. The appointment is for life. At one's death, the office ceases and his replacement takes over both the offices and the titles….

1 Sam 26:15 And David said to Abner, Art not thou a valiant man? and who is like to thee in Israel? wherefore then hast thou not kept ton Kurion sou ton basilea [thy lord the king]? for there came one of the people in to destroy ton basilea Kurion sou [the king thy lord]. 16 This thing is not good that thou hast done. As the LORD liveth, ye are worthy to die, ye who guard ton bassilea kurion [your Lord the king], ton Criston kuriou [the anointed of the Lord]. And now see where the king's spear is, and the cruse of water that was at his head.

But Luke calls Jesus “ton Xriston Kuriou” [The Lord's anointed]. Jesus was the Lord's
anointed during his lifetime. At his death, the office ceased.
Luke 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen ton Xriston Kuriou [The Lord's Christ].

The Levitical high priests were also anointed, and were called “o Xristos;” and the appointment was for life, ceasing at the death of the high priest. Lev 4:5 And the priest that is o Xristos [anointed] shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:

Mathew calls Jesus “o Cristos” because everyone expected “God's anointed” Messiah to appear. Mat 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where o Xristos [Christ] should be born.

It is important to understand that both the office of Priest and of King was only during the life of the anointed. At his death, the office passed to his successor. In Jesus case, his offices of priest and king ended at his death. THAT IS WHY God raised him from the dead AND MADE HIM BOTH LORD AND CHRIST (Anointed)[Acts 2:36]. He RE-ESTABLISHED the offices forever for his resurrected son, BECAUSE “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” [Psa 110:4] Quoted in Heb 5:6 “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”

It is also important to understand that Jesus was raised form the dead and “MADE BOTH LORD AND CHRIST” because the priesthood was intended for one who continued forever, not limited by death as the Levitical priests were.
“And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;” [Heb 7:20-26]

Was the resurrected Jesus at God's right hand a man? The answer is Yes! Emphatically yes!

Look at the chronology of the anointed of God.

Adam was a created being;

Eve was “made” from Adam's rib, therefore a created being

Messiah will be “the seed of the woman” [Gen 3:15] therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “the seed” of Abraham [Gen 12:3][Heb 2:16; Gal 3:16] therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “the seed” of Isaac [Gen 26:4]therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “the seed” of Jacob [Gen 28:14]therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “the seed” of Judah [Gen 49:10; Heb 7:14]therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “raised up from among thy brethren,” the Jews [Deut 18:15,18], therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “the seed” of Jesse [Isa 11:1,10][Rom 15:12] therefore a created being.

Messiah will be “the seed” of David [Psa 132:11][Jer 23:5-6][John 7:42][Rom 1:3] therefore a created being.

Messiah was “Made of a woman” [Gal 4:4] therefore a created being.

Messiah will be a “second MAN Adam” therefore a created being

If you want me to shorten my posts, offer one issue at a time. I will then respond to one issue at a time.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Paladin @ June 07 2009,01:21)

thethinker,June wrote: Paladin said: Quote I believe John tells it best, when he tells us “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” [John 20:30-31] This is circular reasoning. The Son of God is God. Paladin said: Quote The problem you are having is that you are trying to defend the position stated by the Jews who murdered Christ by their testimony; which testimony they changed at his trial. How can you say that the Jews changed their testimony at Jesus' trial when John 5:18 says that they wanted to kill Him for calling God His Father. He referred to Himself as the “Son” several times in that encounter with the Jews. Yet you say it was later on at His trial they figured out that He was only claiming to be the Son of God? You are denying that Jesus' claim to be the son of God was blasphemy to them, Quote The Jews answered him [Pilate]. “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God (John 19:7) Paladin said: Quote And you are adding a word to Jesus' own testimony. He did NOT say “God is my OWN father.” So quit claiming Jesus said God was his “own” Father. I am adding a word you say? Jesus did indeed claim that God was His OWN Father, Quote For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only for breaking the sabbath, but He was even calling God His OWN Father, making Himself equal with God (NIV) The Greek “idiov” (his own) is in the Greek text. Paladin said: Quote THE JEWS WOULD HAVE KILLED JESUS NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID. Point well taken. Paladin said: Quote But the Jews had made the same claim, that God is their Father. Show where a Jew claimed to be God's “only begotten” Son or that God was his OWN Father. Paladin said: Quote WHAT JESUS SAID “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS SAID JESUS' WORDS MEANT “thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33 WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORDS MEANT “I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36] Ergo, the Son of God is God. Paladin said: Quote So at his trial, the Jews agree with Jesus about what his words meant. But the thinker agrees with the Jews accusation which they later retracted by their testimony. John explicitly says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for calling God His OWN Father (John 5:18). This was BEFORE the trial. What's this stuff about a “retraction”? To the Jew and also to John was a Jew the Son of God was equal to God. Paladin said: Quote Why did you refuse to deal with the issue in my post? Quote (Paladin) None of the apostles said to Thomas, “God is risen.” They testified “We have seen the Lord.”[John 20:25] This is circular. The term “Lord” and God” are the same. Paul said that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is “Lord.” This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 45 where GOD says that “every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess.” So Paul is applying the prophecy to Jesus. Paladin said: Quote Thomas already KNEW it was God who would raise him from the dead. “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? 19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” [Luke 9:18-22] So Thomas, upon seeing resurrected Christ made the only connection he could between what he saw and what he had already been told to expect; God working a miracle to raise Thomas' Lord. Circular again. To the Jew the titles “Christ of God”, “Son of man”, and “Lord” were ALL divine titles. Paladin said: Quote Jesus did not say he would raise himself from the dead. He said “I will raise it up” which is a reference to his body, which is the church. John's narrative clearly contradicts Paladin. John said, Quote Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said. Paladin said: Quote He did NOT raise himself, because NO MAN could possibly do that. Je sus went down to hades ALIVE. So He could raise Himself from the dead. I thought Paladin believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Would this be too hard for the Son of God? Again, John's narrative contradicts Paladin, Quote Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said. This is all I had time to do today. Paladin PLEASE shorten your posts. It is not necessary to write a whole treatise man! thinker Paladin said: Quote   I believe John tells it best, when he tells us “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” [John 20:30-31] (thinker) This is circular reasoning. The Son of God is God. I suppose you think the son of Phillip of Macedonia was Phillip of Macedonia. I have a newsbreak for you. Phillip of Macedonia's son was Alexander the Great. Cannot you read scripture? 2 John 1:3 “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, THE SON OF THE FATHER, in truth and love.” John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. If the Father is the only true God [John 17:1,3], and the son of God is the son of the only true God [John 17:1], then he is not the only true God, but is HIS SON. [2 John 1:3] Paladin said: Quote   The problem you are having is that you are trying to defend the position stated by the Jews who murdered Christ by their testimony; which testimony they changed at his trial. (thinker) How can you say that the Jews changed their testimony at Jesus' trial when John 5:18 says that they wanted to kill Him for calling God His Father. He referred to Himself as the “Son” several times in that encounter with the Jews. Yet you say it was later on at His trial they figured out that He was only claiming to be the Son of God? You are denying that Jesus' claim to be the son of God was blasphemy to them, (Paladin) Easy. Because they changed their testimony at his trial. I consider that to be evidence that they changed their testimony at his trial. The question is not “What is every word the Jews uttered in John 5:18;” the question is what was the testimony that was different in John 19:7? Why don't you try to focus on what I said instead of trying to twist everything I say into your own advantage? What the Jews said in John 5:18; “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” How the Jews changed their testimony at his trial by what they said in John 19:7; “He made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7) I did not say they changed their testimony about breaking the sabbath, and I did not say they changed their testimony about calling God his Father; I said they changed their testimony about who he MADE HIMSELF. Perhaps a remedial course in reading with comprehension would help you. Paladin said: Quote   And you are adding a word to Jesus' own testimony. He did NOT say “God is my OWN father.” So quit claiming Jesus said God was his “own” Father. I am adding a word you say? Jesus did indeed claim that God was His OWN Father, Quote   For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only for breaking the sabbath, but He was even calling God His OWN Father, making Himself equal with God (NIV) The Greek “idiov” (his own) is in the Greek text. o.k. You have just set the standard for exegeting the passages. When I do the same, to ptove my point, You have no more right to object. I give you your point. If it is in the Greek text, it is officially what is meant. Now, show me the “trinity,” “triune,” “three-in-one,” “Theos 'o huios,” “omoousian” or any other Greek word that means the same. Remember, if it is not in the Greek it is added, and therefore not allowed. Paladin said: Quote   But the Jews had made the same claim, that God is their Father. (thinker) Show where a Jew claimed to be God's “only begotten” Son or that God was his OWN Father. (Paladin) YOU show ME where that was an issue in the reference material under consideration. In fact, You show ME where Jesus ever made the claim to be God's “only-begotten” son. Paladin said: Quote   WHAT JESUS SAID “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS HEARD JESUS SAY “I and my Father are one.” [John 10:30] WHAT THE JEWS SAID JESUS' WORDS MEANT “thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [John 10:33 WHAT JESUS SAID HIS WORDS MEANT “I said, I am the Son of God?” [John 10:36] (thinker) Ergo, the Son of God is God. Don't go stupid on me thinker. Who is the son of Phillip of Macedonia? Was it Phillip of Macedonia, or was it Alexander the Great? Even Paul said he is in “a form of God.” You cannot be both the thing AND the form of the thing. Being the son of God qualifies him to be a “form of God,” but does not make him God. And remember the standard YOU set above. Since the article in not in the Greek, you cannot add “the” to “form of God.” It is anarthrous. Jesus “being in a form of God…”[Phil 2:6] Paladin said: Quote   So at his trial, the Jews agree with Jesus about what his words meant. But the thinker agrees with the Jews accusation which they later retracted by their testimony. John explicitly says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for calling God His OWN Father (John 5:18). This was BEFORE the trial. What's this stuff about a “retraction”? To the Jew and also to John was a Jew the Son of God was equal to God. Absolutely fallacious. Do you not know the scriptures at all? GOD SAID ISRAEL IS GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah [the LORD], Israel is my huios [son], even my prwtotokos [firstborn]: GOD SAID DAVID WILL BE MADE GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON Psa 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: 21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him. 22 The enemy shal l not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. 23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him. 24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted. 25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. 26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art MY FATHER, MY GOD, and the rock of my salvation. 27 Also I WILL MAKE HIM MY PRWTOTOKOS [FIRSTBORN], higher than the kings of the earth. GOD SAID EPHRAIM IS GOD'S FIRSTBORN SON Jeremiah 31:7 For thus saith JEHOVAH [the LORD]; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. 8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. 9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I AM A FATHER TO ISRAEL, and Ephraim is my PRWTOTOKOS [firstborn.] THIS IS THE ONLY VERSE THAT SPEAKS OF JESUS BEING GOD'S “FIRSTBORN SON.” Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son (Jesus), that he (Jesus) might be the PRWTOTOKOS [firstborn] among many brethren. So, please, do not pretend to tell me what the Jews thought being God's son meant. They did not try to kill Israel, David, or Ephraim for being called God's firstborn son. Or are you going to now tell me it meant something else? The Jews never though Israel, David, or Ephraim are God. Did the Jews seek to kill David, thinking David was calling himself God's son, therefore equal to God? NO! Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Paladin said: Quote   Why did you refuse to deal with the issue in my post? (Paladin) None of the apostles said to Thomas, “God is risen.” They testified “We have seen the Lord.”[John 20:25] (thinker) This is circular. The term “Lord” and God” are the same. Paul said that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is “Lord.” This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 45 where GOD says that “every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess.” So Paul is applying the prophecy to Jesus. (Paladin) What total unmitigated nonsense. Jesus is Lord of something God is not the God of, therefore, Lord is NOT the same as God. It CANNOT be. Paladin said: Quote   Thomas already KNEW it was God who would raise him from the dead. “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? 19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God. 21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” [Luke 9:18-22] So Thomas, upon seeing resurrected Christ made the only connection he could between what he saw and what he had already been told to expect; God working a miracle to raise Thomas' Lord. (thinker) Circular again. To the Jew the titles “Christ of God”, “Son of man”, and “Lord” were ALL divine titles. SON OF MAN IS NOT A DIVINE TITLE – GOD IS NOT THE SON OF MAN, THEREFORE THE SON OF MAN IS NOT GOD Numbers 23:19 GOD IS NOT a man, that he should lie; neither THE SON OF MAN, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? LORD IS NOT A DIVINE TITLE Genesis 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my Adown [lord] being old also? Genesis 23:6 Hear us, my Adown [lord]: thou art a Elohiym [mighty] prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead. Genesis 24:12 And he said, O [kurios] LORD [theos] God of my [kurios] master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my [kurios] master Abraham. Genesis 24:35 And the [kurios] LORD hath blessed my [kurios] master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses. Isaiah 26:13 O Jehovah our Elohiym [(kurios)LORD our God], other Adown (kurios)[lords] beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 1 Samuel 1:14 And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. 15 And Hannah answered and said, No, my Adown [lord], I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before Jehovah [the LORD]. 1 Samuel 20:38 And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his Adown [master]. “CHRIST OF GOD” IS NOT A DIVINE TITLE “Xriston tou Theou” means “THE ANOINTING OF HIS GOD,” AND IS TRANSLATED “Christ of God in Luke 9:20, “He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, Ton Xriston tou Theou [The Christ of God].” Jesus is designated “The “Christ of God,” [Ton Xriston tou Theou]; which means “The anointed of his God.” Jesus is not the first to hold such a lofty title, nor is he the only man ever so designated. Under the Mosaic dispensation, or Old Covenant, the High Priest of God was designated   [Xriston tou Theou], “The anointed of God.” When the High Priest was anointed, it was for his lifetime. And he was (Xriston tou Theou) “the Christ of God”  till he died. His office ended at his death. Lev 21:12 “And he the priest that is chief among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the anointed one, and he having been consecrated to put on the garments, shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments; 11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body, neither shall he defile himself for his father, or his mother; 12 And he shall not go out of the sanctuary, and he shall not profane the sanctuary of his God; because the holy [Xriston tou Theou] anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the Lord.”  [Septuagint] The Hebrew account puts it slightly different; “for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him:” King David spoke of King Saul to Abner, calling Saul “ton kurion sou ton basilea” [thy Lord the king]; and ton “Xriston Kuriou,” The anointed of the Lord, which offices Saul held till his death. The appointment is for life. At one's death, the office ceases and his replacement takes over both the offices and the titles…. 1 Sam 26:15 And David said to Abner, Art not thou a valiant man? and who is like to thee in Israel? wherefore then hast thou not kept ton Kurion sou ton basilea [thy lord the king]? for there came one of the people in to destroy ton basilea Kurion sou [the king thy lord]. 16 This thing is not good that thou hast done. As the LORD liveth, ye are worthy to die, ye who guard ton bassilea kurion [your Lord the king], ton Criston kuriou [the anointed of the Lord]. And now see where t he king's spear is, and the cruse of water that was at his head. But Luke calls Jesus “ton Xriston Kuriou” [The Lord's anointed]. Jesus was the Lord's anointed during his lifetime. At his death, the office ceased. Luke 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen ton Xriston Kuriou [The Lord's Christ]. The Levitical high priests were also anointed, and were called “o Xristos;” and the appointment was for life, ceasing at the death of the high priest. Lev 4:5 And the priest that is o Xristos [anointed] shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: Mathew calls Jesus “o Cristos” because everyone expected “God's anointed” Messiah to appear. Mat 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where o Xristos [Christ] should be born. It is important to understand that both the office of Priest and of King was only during the life of the anointed. At his death, the office passed to his successor. In Jesus case, his offices of priest and king ended at his death. THAT IS WHY God raised him from the dead AND MADE HIM BOTH LORD AND CHRIST (Anointed)[Acts 2:36]. He RE-ESTABLISHED the offices forever for his resurrected son, BECAUSE “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” [Psa 110:4] Quoted in Heb 5:6 “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” It is also important to understand that Jesus was raised form the dead and “MADE BOTH LORD AND CHRIST” because the priesthood was intended for one who continued forever, not limited by death as the Levitical priests were. “And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;” [Heb 7:20-26] Was the resurrected Jesus at God's right hand a man? The answer is Yes! Emphatically yes! Look at the chronology of the anointed of God. Adam was a created being; Eve was “made” from Adam's rib, therefore a created being Messiah will be “the seed of the woman” [Gen 3:15] therefore a created being. Messiah will be “the seed” of Abraham [Gen 12:3][Heb 2:16; Gal 3:16] therefore a created being. Messiah will be “the seed” of Isaac [Gen 26:4]therefore a created being. Messiah will be “the seed” of Jacob [Gen 28:14]therefore a created being. Messiah will be “the seed” of Judah [Gen 49:10; Heb 7:14]therefore a created being. Messiah will be “raised up from among thy brethren,” the Jews [Deut 18:15,18], therefore a created being. Messiah will be “the seed” of Jesse [Isa 11:1,10][Rom 15:12] therefore a created being. Messiah will be “the seed” of David [Psa 132:11][Jer 23:5-6][John 7:42][Rom 1:3] therefore a created being. Messiah was “Made of a woman” [Gal 4:4] therefore a created being. Messiah will be a “second MAN Adam” therefore a created being If you want me to shorten my posts, offer one issue at a time. I will then respond to one issue at a time.

Awesome post!

[KangarooJack]

To Paladin,
You're correct that Hebrews 1 says that Christ obtained the name “begtten Son” by inheritance. I meant to bring in Philippians 2 with that where Paul said that God exalted Jesus and gave Him a name that is above every name as a reward for His obedience. This is why I said that Jesus EARNED the name “begotten Son”.

thinker

[Author]

Posts