Satan

[NickHassan]

Hi GB,
So the great physician was not so great?
He was influenced by local mysticism but you have superior knowledge?
wake up dude.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:07)

Hi David Ha Ha! Have you ever heard me deny Yeshua as the Son of the Father? To say that because Yeshua is the Son of God, he cannot also be God in nature, is like saying that because you are a son of your father means you are not human.

By saying that he is God, you are subtly saying that he is not the son of God because he is either God or God's son.

Although I agree that you may not understand this because if you did, it could then be said that you may be deceiving people into believing that he was God at the expense of him being the son of God. I don't think that you are knowingly part of a conspiracy, but if people actually followed what you taught, then you would be responsible for them denying in essence that he is the son by reason of saying that he was God.

Quite strange how a belief in one thing in principle denies belief in another thing. Saying that you believe both isn't really honest nor reasonable because the first belief overrides the second one.

The end result is confusion and division.

[GeneBalthrop]

Nick………Are you sitting down, I'll tell you something else, JESUS HIMSELF NEVER HEALED ANYONE. And neither did the Apostles. It was GOD the Father HIMSELF that did the healing.The Father is the GREAT PHYSICIAN, and He said He gives HIS Glory to NO MAN>Jesus was a MAN>

Hope i didn't upset your apple cart to much…………gene

[NickHassan]

Hi GB,
Of course the power was not from the vessel but in the vessel.
But you deny his knowledge came from God rather thinking it inferior and cultural mysticism?

[Jodi]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2008,12:46)

Hi Jodi Thanks for your response. Since you say that I am of the Harlot and blind, and imply also that the 100s of Greek and Hebrew scholars and commentators are also blind, and pretty much everyone else on this sight are all of the harlot, and that you are the only one with a brain and the truth, I doubt if there is anymore convincing truth or evidence I or anyone else can say or show you that will change your mind. However, I would appreciate that you answer the following questions which it seems you keep avoiding while plastering your own apologetics in response. 1. How do you explain that the Greek shows the evil spirits doing the action as LU has pointed out. Quote (Lightenup @ July 16 2008,11:29) It is the Greek active voice that the verbs were written in that tells us that the spirits did the coming out and the entering into the pigs. These actions didn't happen to the spirits, they (the spirits) did the actions. As I stated in my previous post, they did these actions in response to the Lord's direction, no question about that. Do you understand the concept of the active and passive voice in Greek? 2. When Yeshua was tempted by satan, was it his unclean spirit or old man or old nature in him that he was having a conversation with? Did he lead himself to the pinnacle and quote to himself the scriptures? Was he telling his old nature that it was to worship God and him only shall he serve? Was the evil spirit cast out of him or was he healed? 3. Can you show me “one” scripture in Paul’s, Peter or John’s writings that says the old man or old nature of man or the flesh of man is the “Daimonia”? 4. Can you give us some credible references for your belief that evil spirits or demons are illnesses or sicknesses or madness? I have others, but that will suffice for now. Again Jodi, we do not need a translation of the translations. The scriptures generally are to be taken literally as they are without special pleading and inference. That is how most false doctrines are started. The experts of Greek and Hebrew have already done the translating. Not meaning that we cannot compare scripture with scriptures and check out the Greek and Hebrew meanings, but it is not for us to change the translations, unless you want to rewrite the scriptures. Blessings WJ

Now come on WJ, I didn't say that I am the only one with a brain.You called me a heretic. According to MY belief and MY opinion, yes I do believe that you follow a Christian cover up to pagan beliefs, and according to the biblical language that would make you a prostitute or an adulterer.

Like I have said numerous times before, I just state what makes the best sense to me. And this is what I know-

The Old Testament is pretty clear IMO that YHWH is the only supernatural power that can bring blessings and curses onto people. Pagans and the Israelites, who time and time again followed in pagan tradition, attributed YHWH's powers to being that of false gods and their demons.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the NT would all the sudden be revealing a notion that followed in line with pagan beliefs and that totally contradicts the Old Testament?

Demons to the Greeks were NOT fallen angels. The word demon, known to the Greeks stood for evil spirits. Demons known to the Greeks represented to YHWH a belief of utter falsehood. These evil spirits were thought to be lower then gods but higher in power and intelligence from the humans. These demons were thought to bring unto man not just complete possession of a person's body, but simple conditions such as fevers and headaches. The Pharisees even believed in these false gods and demons, as I previously mentioned. They believed in the false god beelzebub and his false demons.

In my opinion WJ, according to your belief I would just have to throw out one of the main messages of the Old Testament in order for me to believe as you do. If the Gospels were trying to establish a new belief that other supernatural beings could bring about curses onto mankind, IMO they certainly did a poor job of it.

We should not understand the word demon as considered according to the Greeks, of which the language of the Gospels were written, because that reflects falsehood. To YHWH the demons known to the Greeks were idiotic, they had no power, they were made up according to the superstitions of man.

So if we are to understand what the Jews meant when using the Greek language to reveal God's inspired word, what did they mean when they used the word demon, certainly not the ideas of the pagans! IMO, because they used interchangeably the word demon possession with that of evil spirit and unclean spirit, it must be concluded then that demon possession meant to be cursed under the will and power of God.

According to you WJ, we are suppose to believe in some sort of supernatural being that is not only unexplained to us in the bible, but reflects quite peculiarly that of the pagan beliefs of demons known to us as falsehood according to the Old Testament.

Do you SEE my problem here?? The belief that mainstream Christianity holds in regards to demons reflects the same thing as what pagans believed.

Can you honestly deny the similarity to what you believe and that of all mainstream Christianity with that of the pagans in regards to the identity of demons?

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 15 2008,16:21)

Hi GB, Of course the power was not from the vessel but in the vessel. But you deny his knowledge came from God rather thinking it inferior and cultural mysticism?

Nick….when did i ever deny Jesus knowledge did not come from God, God did reveal many things to Jesus, but not all things, and Like i said Jesus dealt with those people on their level of understanding.You need to read Jodi's post and think abut it. And Nick please quite trying to make it seam like i am saying things i am not saying. If you were to ask me if i thought Jesus had as much understanding as the Father i would say no he doesn't and probably nerve will either.

peace……….gene

[Not3in1]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,16:01)

Quite strange how a belief in one thing in principle denies belief in another thing.

Hmmmm.

This is something worth pondering!

Thanks,
Mandy

[Not3in1]

Hey Jodi,

Don't mean to interupt your debate – just wanted to say hello and glad to see you here.

Carry on!
Mandy

[Jodi]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2008,13:35)

Hi GB Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,14:05) WJ…..then why rebuke Peter then if he wasn't the one doing it. Jesus didn't say get behind me you Satan that is IN YOU Peter did He. Peter was coming from a worldly view point which was in Him , he therefore acted and spoke that way as all men do who do not have God's Spirit in them, they are Adversaries (or SATAN'S) of God He Called Peter Satan, not someone jumping in and out of Him. Yeshua rebuked Peter because he was inspired by satan to speak the words. Peter yielded to the thoughts that satan put in his mind. That’s why he rebuked him. Satan can put thoughts in man’s heart just as he did with Judas… And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; John 13:2 The tempter came to Peter as he did Yeshua. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Matt 4:3 Yeshua was also speaking to satan to get behind him. Jesus also warned Peter that satan desired to sift him as wheat And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luke 22:31 Yeshua was not speaking in some kind of code that Peter had to figure out, like it is his old man, or he would have plainly said “Peter your flesh or old man has desired to sift you as wheat”. We don’t need any special pleading or interpretation to read what is plainly written in these examples As far as satan being able to possess someone, how do you explain these scriptures… Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. Luke 22:3 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.John 13:27 Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,14:05) Satan is the state of man without The Spirit of in Him. Jesus called the Pharisees devils. Even Judas it says the devil interred in Him, but was that a being that was not Him and if so why hold him responsible for something else is doing them. Where is the scripture that states Jesus called them devils? Please show me one scripture where Paul, Peter or John even infers that “diabolos” or “daimonia” is the old man or old nature or flesh of man. Jesus didn’t call them devils; he said they were of their “father” the devil. They belonged to the Kingdom of darkness of which Yeshua spoke of saying his kingdom is not divided against itself. The Greek word for Kingdom is “basileia”, which means; 1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom This same satan is referred to by Paul as “the god of this world”… In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Cor 4:4 The word for god as you know is “theos” a masculine noun which is only found in the NT as referring to a sentient being. The word “world’ is “aion” which means; 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age So satan for the unbeliever is the god of the present time, and of the lust of their father they will do. John 8:44 Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,14:05) WJ…… i have read where Newton did indeed speak and write Greek, Hebrew, and Latin fluently,even some of His own writings are written in these languages by Him. Just Go to the Newton Project and read the material available. I can't remember exactly where in the many papers i have read about him that talked about His Linguistic abilities i read it in, Ill try to find it for you. Many of His papers on religion are now being published to the public. There is nothing anywhere that I can find to validate your claim. Even Wikopedia has no information of Sir Isaac Newton having any formal education in Greek, Hebrew or Latin studies. Check it out here. Again, the Bible is clear on this subject and doesn’t need an interpretation of the interpretations. WJ

WJ, why is it that if Peter is following a supernatural being it is said in Matthew 16:23 that Peter is FOLLOWING the things of men?

It just makes no sense to me that Peter needs a supernatural being to make him follow his own ways, the ways of MEN.

Scripture tells us that the adversary here represents the ways of men, therefore common sense would tell me that the ways of men are according to the natures of men, which is according to the carnal mind of man.

Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Why is it so hard for you to see that the adversary represents the carnal mind of man that chooses to serve the flesh?

Are you really trying to tell us that it takes a supernatural being in order for us to think according to our own flesh?

Do you really believe that some red devil with horns was sitting upon Judas's shoulder whispering in his ear, money, money take the money and turn Yeshua in? You don't think that it was Judas own weak flesh desiring after all that he could obtain from his pay off that caused him to betray?

Why do you so readily want to deny Paul's assertions that it is our own weak carnal mind that is at enmity with us. Why must you add that the adversary is anything else but that?

Why do you deny,

James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.

It was Judas OWN desires that caused him to betray Yeshua. It was Peter's own mind that caused him to speak the words in which Yeshua rebuked. That is SPECIFICALLY why the adversary was referred to as being as having the mind of man. The adversary to Judas was his own desires. The adversary to Peter was his own thoughts which were in error.

[Jodi]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 14 2008,22:24)

Hey Jodi, Don't mean to interupt your debate – just wanted to say hello and glad to see you here. Carry on! Mandy

Hey Sis,

Hope your doing well. So happy to hear from you. I have been pretty busy lately, as I am sure you can relate. I do wish I had more time to spend on here.

Love to you, Jodi

[Jodi]

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 14 2008,10:05)

Hi Sis Jodi, Welcome back it's a good post indeed. I appreciate your concern on this thread 'Satan'. But why don't you share your thought on 'preexistence' ? Love to you Adam

Hello to you too brother Adam!

Thanks so much for your kind words and encouragement. I will indeed try and make my way over to the preexistence page. God knows my mind could probably use a break sooner then later from this particular topic.

Love to you, Jodi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Jodi @ Aug. 15 2008,16:23)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2008,12:46) Hi Jodi Thanks for your response. Since you say that I am of the Harlot and blind, and imply also that the 100s of Greek and Hebrew scholars and commentators are also blind, and pretty much everyone else on this sight are all of the harlot, and that you are the only one with a brain and the truth, I doubt if there is anymore convincing truth or evidence I or anyone else can say or show you that will change your mind. However, I would appreciate that you answer the following questions which it seems you keep avoiding while plastering your own apologetics in response. 1. How do you explain that the Greek shows the evil spirits doing the action as LU has pointed out. Quote (Lightenup @ July 16 2008,11:29) It is the Greek active voice that the verbs were written in that tells us that the spirits did the coming out and the entering into the pigs.  These actions didn't happen to the spirits, they (the spirits) did the actions.  As I stated in my previous post, they did these actions in response to the Lord's direction, no question about that.  Do you understand the concept of the active and passive voice in Greek? 2. When Yeshua was tempted by satan, was it his unclean spirit or old man or old nature in him that he was having a conversation with? Did he lead himself to the pinnacle and quote to himself the scriptures? Was he telling his old nature that it was to worship God and him only shall he serve? Was the evil spirit cast out of him or was he healed? 3. Can you show me “one” scripture in Paul’s, Peter or John’s writings that says the old man or old nature of man or the flesh of man is the “Daimonia”? 4. Can you give us some credible references for your belief that evil spirits or demons are illnesses or sicknesses or madness? I have others, but that will suffice for now. Again Jodi, we do not need a translation of the translations. The scriptures generally are to be taken literally as they are without special pleading and inference. That is how most false doctrines are started. The experts of Greek and Hebrew have already done the translating. Not meaning that we cannot compare scripture with scriptures and check out the Greek and Hebrew meanings, but it is not for us to change the translations, unless you want to rewrite the scriptures. Blessings WJ Now come on WJ, I didn't say that I am the only one with a brain.You called me a heretic. According to MY belief and MY opinion, yes I do believe that you follow a Christian cover up to pagan beliefs, and according to the biblical language that would make you a prostitute or an adulterer. Like I have said numerous times before, I just state what makes the best sense to me. And this is what I know- The Old Testament is pretty clear IMO that YHWH is the only supernatural power that can bring blessings and curses onto people. Pagans and the Israelites, who time and time again followed in pagan tradition, attributed YHWH's powers to being that of false gods and their demons. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the NT would all the sudden be revealing a notion that followed in line with pagan beliefs and that totally contradicts the Old Testament? Demons to the Greeks were NOT fallen angels. The word demon, known to the Greeks stood for evil spirits. Demons known to the Greeks represented to YHWH a belief of utter falsehood. These evil spirits were thought to be lower then gods but higher in power and intelligence from the humans. These demons were thought to bring unto man not just complete possession of a person's body, but simple conditions such as fevers and headaches. The Pharisees even believed in these false gods and demons, as I previously mentioned. They believed in the false god beelzebub and his false demons. In my opinion WJ, according to your belief I would just have to throw out one of the main messages of the Old Testament in order for me to believe as you do. If the Gospels were trying to establish a new belief that other supernatural beings could bring about curses onto mankind, IMO they certainly did a poor job of it. We should not understand the word demon as considered according to the Greeks, of which the language of the Gospels were written, because that reflects falsehood. To YHWH the demons known to the Greeks were idiotic, they had no power, they were made up according to the superstitions of man. So if we are to understand what the Jews meant when using the Greek language to reveal God's inspired word, what did they mean when they used the word demon, certainly not the ideas of the pagans! IMO, because they used interchangeably the word demon possession with that of evil spirit and unclean spirit,  it must be concluded then that demon possession meant to be cursed under the will and power of God. According to you WJ, we are suppose to believe in some sort of supernatural being that is not only unexplained to us in the bible, but reflects quite peculiarly that of the pagan beliefs of demons known to us as falsehood according to the Old Testament.   Do you SEE my problem here?? The belief that mainstream Christianity holds in regards to demons reflects the same thing as what pagans believed. Can you honestly deny the similarity to what you believe and that of all mainstream Christianity with that of the pagans in regards to the identity of demons?

Hi Jodi

I see, so I take it you are not going to answer the questions.

But can't you see how most do not hold your opinion when you cannot answer simple questions like the ones I propose?

Yes I do believe your doctrine concerning satan and devils being man is heritical and a denial of tons of scriptures that says otherwise.

Its obvious to me and I think others that you are evading Greek and Hebrew construction to support your theory.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,16:01)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:07) Hi David Ha Ha! Have you ever heard me deny Yeshua as the Son of the Father? To say that because Yeshua is the Son of God, he cannot also be God in nature, is like saying that because you are a son of your father means you are not human. By saying that he is God, you are subtly saying that he is not the son of God because he is either God or God's son. Although I agree that you may not understand this because if you did, it could then be said that you may be deceiving people into believing that he was God at the expense of him being the son of God. I don't think that you are knowingly part of a conspiracy, but if people actually followed what you taught, then you would be responsible for them denying in essence that he is the son by reason of saying that he was God. Quite strange how a belief in one thing in principle denies belief in another thing. Saying that you believe both isn't really honest nor reasonable because the first belief overrides the second one. The end result is confusion and division.

Hi t8

Since this is getting off topic I took this over to the John 1:1 thread.

WJ

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Jodi @ Aug. 15 2008,17:39)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2008,13:35) Hi GB Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,14:05) WJ…..then why rebuke Peter then if he wasn't the one doing it. Jesus didn't say get behind me you Satan that is IN YOU Peter did He. Peter was coming from a worldly view point which was in Him , he therefore acted and spoke that way as all men do who do not have God's Spirit in them, they are Adversaries (or SATAN'S) of God He Called Peter Satan, not someone jumping in and out of Him. Yeshua rebuked Peter because he was inspired by satan to speak the words. Peter yielded to the thoughts that satan put in his mind. That’s why he rebuked him. Satan can put thoughts in man’s heart just as he did with Judas… And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; John 13:2 The tempter came to Peter as he did Yeshua. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Matt 4:3 Yeshua was also speaking to satan to get behind him. Jesus also warned Peter that satan desired to sift him as wheat And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luke 22:31 Yeshua was not speaking in some kind of code that Peter had to figure out, like it is his old man, or he would have plainly said “Peter your flesh or old man has desired to sift you as wheat”. We don’t need any special pleading or interpretation to read what is plainly written in these examples As far as satan being able to possess someone, how do you explain these scriptures… Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. Luke 22:3 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.John 13:27 Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,14:05) Satan is the state of man without The Spirit of in Him. Jesus called the Pharisees devils. Even Judas it says the devil interred in Him, but was that a being that was not Him and if so why hold him responsible for something else is doing them. Where is the scripture that states Jesus called them devils? Please show me one scripture where Paul, Peter or John even infers that “diabolos” or “daimonia” is the old man or old nature or flesh of man. Jesus didn’t call them devils; he said they were of their “father” the devil. They belonged to the Kingdom of darkness of which Yeshua spoke of saying his kingdom is not divided against itself. The Greek word for Kingdom is “basileia”, which means; 1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom This same satan is referred to by Paul as “the god of this world”… In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Cor 4:4 The word for god as you know is “theos” a masculine noun which is only found in the NT as referring to a sentient being. The word “world’ is “aion” which means; 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age So satan for the unbeliever is the god of the present time, and of the lust of their father they will do. John 8:44 Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,14:05) WJ…… i have read where Newton did indeed speak and write Greek, Hebrew, and Latin fluently,even some of His own writings are written in these languages by Him. Just Go to the Newton Project and read the material available. I can't remember exactly where in the many papers i have read about him that talked about His Linguistic abilities i read it in, Ill try to find it for you. Many of His papers on religion are now being published to the public. There is nothing anywhere that I can find to validate your claim. Even Wikopedia has no information of Sir Isaac Newton having any formal education in Greek, Hebrew or Latin studies. Check it out here. Again, the Bible is clear on this subject and doesn’t need an interpretation of the interpretations. WJ WJ, why is it that if Peter is following a supernatural being it is said in Matthew 16:23 that Peter is FOLLOWING the things of men? It just makes no sense to me that Peter needs a supernatural being to make him follow his own ways, the ways of MEN. Scripture tells us that the adversary here represents the ways of men, therefore common sense would tell me that the ways of men are according to the natures of men, which is according to the carnal mind of man. Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Why is it so hard for you to see that the adversary represents the carnal mind of man that chooses to serve the flesh? Are you really trying to tell us that it takes a supernatural being in order for us to think according to our own flesh? Do you really believe that some red devil with horns was sitting upon Judas's shoulder whispering in his ear, money, money take the money and turn Yeshua in? You don't think that it was Judas own weak flesh desiring after all that he could obtain from his pay off that caused him to betray? Why do you so readily want to deny Paul's assertions that it is our own weak carnal mind that is at enmity with us. Why must you add that the adversary is anything else but that? Why do you deny, James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. It was Judas OWN desires that caused him to betray Yeshua. It was Peter's own mind that caused him to speak the words in which Yeshua rebuked. That is SPECIFICALLY why the adversary was referred to as being as having the mind of man. The adversary to Judas was his own desires. The adversary to Peter was his own thoughts which were in error.

Jodi…..Amen sis , YOU have Nailed IT.

love to you and yours…………..gene

[Jodi]

Hi WJ,

I am almost done with my post answering your questions. Hopefully I will have it finished tonight or at least by tomorrow. Thanks for your patients.

Peace to you, Jodi

[david]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:25)

Quote (david @ Aug. 15 2008,11:15) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:07) Quote (david @ Aug. 15 2008,08:34) Quote They crucified Jesus because he said he was the Son of God. –wj I'm glad to see you're making progress WJ. :> Hi David Ha Ha! Have you ever heard me deny Yeshua as the Son of the Father? To say that because Yeshua is the Son of God, he cannot also be God in nature, is like saying that because you are a son of your father means you are not human. But if I said I'm a king and also said I'm God, which charge would you pick to show I'm insane? Probably, the stronger case, of me claiming to be God. Yet, you rightly state that Jesus was claiming to be the son of God. Anyway, it was a joke, of course. Quote (david @ Aug. 15 2008,11:15) But if I said I'm a king and also said I'm God, which charge would you pick to show I'm insane? The problem is Yeshua never claimed or said he was a King, did he? WJ

wj, IT was an illustration.

He did claim to be the “son of God” didn't he?

So, if it was generally believed that he claimed to be:

1. God
2. Son of God

And you wanted to prove him crazy or have him done away with, which would you charge him with? you'd think they'd either charge him with somehow paradoxically claiming to both, or with claiming that he was God himself.
Odd, how they charged him with claiming to be the son of God, if he actually claimed to be God.

[Samuel]

What is the purpose of this thread?

There is a lot of things that I simply do not have the understanding of as of yet. I have faith that I will be shown.
I sure wish that I could know with out a doubt what some of these things are.

However, I may not be ready.
I just wish we could all be under the same belief of truth. I feel that we would all be so much better off.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (david @ Aug. 20 2008,16:18)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:25) Quote (david @ Aug. 15 2008,11:15) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,11:07) david,Aug. wrote: Quote They crucified Jesus because he said he was the Son of God. –wj I'm glad to see you're making progress WJ.  :> Hi David Ha Ha! Have you ever heard me deny Yeshua as the Son of the Father? To say that because Yeshua is the Son of God, he cannot also be God in nature, is like saying that because you are a son of your father means you are not human. But if I said I'm a king and also said I'm God, which charge would you pick to show I'm insane?  Probably, the stronger case, of me claiming to be God.  Yet, you rightly state that Jesus was claiming to be the son of God. Anyway, it was a joke, of course. Quote (david @ Aug. 15 2008,11:15) But if I said I'm a king and also said I'm God, which charge would you pick to show I'm insane? The problem is Yeshua never claimed or said he was a King, did he?   WJ

Hi david

Quote (david @ Aug. 20 2008,16:18)

wj, IT was an illustration. He did claim to be the “son of God” didn't he? So, if it was generally believed that he claimed to be: 1. God 2. Son of God And you wanted to prove him crazy or have him done away with, which would you charge him with?

Well, if being a Son of God did not equate to being equal to God, then why was that a reason to crucify him?

Quote (david @ Aug. 20 2008,16:18)

you'd think they'd either charge him with somehow paradoxically claiming to both, or with claiming that he was God himself.

But david, the paradox is with you and not the Jew.

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 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. John 5:17, 18

Either you can believe that the witness John was interpreting their actions and agree with their words (for he doesn’t clarify that it was a lie, neither does Yeshua correct them), or you accept that the Jews believed that because Yeshua said “God was his Father”, that he was making himself equal to God.

I do not think the Jews see a Paradox here, their actions seem straight forward, and the scriptures seem clear.

Quote (david @ Aug. 20 2008,16:18)

Odd, how they charged him with claiming to be the son of God, if he actually claimed to be God.

What’s odd david is that the main reason they crucified him is because he claimed that he was “The Son of God”. If there was nothing wrong with claiming to be “The Son Of God”, (a term that was virtually unheard of among the Hebrews), then why would that be considered a reason for his death?

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7

Tie that in with John 5:17, 18 and it don’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what the Jews believed in their law.

This same John the witness who wrote John 1:1 and 1:18 (in the NIV and NET) and John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20, also wrote….

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 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 20:31

John the witness considers the event Yeshua had with Thomas calling him his “Lord and God”, as a sign without rebuke or correction by neither Yeshua or John, and that those things were written that we might believe in the Son of God and that believing in him we might have life.

There was something special and unique about Yeshua being “The Son of God” for it took special revelation to know who he was, and it still does. IMO

Blessings WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
You ask
“Well, if being a Son of God did not equate to being equal to God, then why was that a reason to crucify him?”

Men were cruciified for many reasons.

He was sent as a servant by God to present the wishes of God.
He suffered a similar fate to all the other servants.
He was not the God Who sent them

Lk20
12And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.

13Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

14But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

[david]

Quote

Well, if being a Son of God did not equate to being equal to God, then why was that a reason to crucify him?

–WJ.

Are you siding with the Pharisees?

Was any of this a reason to kill him? The pharisees may have equated the two, but they weren't very smart were they?

Being that many are called sons of God, (angels, Adam' etc), if Jesus actually claimed to be God it is unthinkable he would not be charged with this.

[Author]

Posts