- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Kerwin,
From what I understand, the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be the 'son of God' but only the 'son of David' yet you believe that He is also the 'son of God'…correct?Kathi
Kerwin,
you said:Quote
Jesus is not the deity because the one true deity cannot be tempted by evil while the Anointed was tempted by evil even as we are. It is necessary for our salvation to believe God cannot be tempted and that Jesus was.God cannot die, cannot be tempted, does not have blood…that is why the Son had to take on flesh so that all that could be possible.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 27 2012,07:20) Kerwin,
you said:Quote
Jesus is not the deity because the one true deity cannot be tempted by evil while the Anointed was tempted by evil even as we are. It is necessary for our salvation to believe God cannot be tempted and that Jesus was.God cannot die, cannot be tempted, does not have blood…that is why the Son had to take on flesh so that all that could be possible.
Kathi
KathiSo according to your teaching God subjected himself to Satan to the extent of being tempted even as we are by putting on human flesh. That means that you teach God could have chosen to do evil or he could not be tempted like we are. It also infers that the desires of human flesh are more powerful than God. Have you thought that teaching through?
Consider that Jesus prayed that believers be one with both him and God as He was one with God. He went on to state the each believer in both he and our Father and he and our Father in each believer.
Elsewhere Scripture teaches us that God lives in a believer through his Spirit.
Using these Scriptures it should be clear that Jesus and our Father live in each believer through the Spirit and each believer lives in both Jesus and our Father through the Spirit just as Jesus lives in our Father through the same Spirit and our Father lives in Jesus by the same Spirit.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 27 2012,05:30) Kerwin,
From what I understand, the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be the 'son of God' but only the 'son of David' yet you believe that He is also the 'son of God'…correct?Kathi
Kathi,The Jews name some of their children Batya; which means daughter of God. After all God called them his children in the books of Law.
Kerwin,
Then why was He crucified and accused of blasphemy because He claimed to be the Son of God. Do you think He claimed to be the literal supernatural Son of God and not just a common child of God that the Israelites might have also claimed?Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 28 2012,08:15) Kerwin,
Then why was He crucified and accused of blasphemy because He claimed to be the Son of God. Do you think He claimed to be the literal supernatural Son of God and not just a common child of God that the Israelites might have also claimed?
Lightenup,Quote Luke 22
New International Version (NIV)66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”
Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”
70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
He replied, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
The “council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law” took offense at him claiming to sit at the right hand of God. That equated with being The Son of God. I am not sure why they took offense as the Jews themselves teach the Messiah will sit at God's right hand.
Here is the quote I read:
Quote R. Yudan said in the name of R. Hama: In the time-to-come, when the Holy One, blessed be He, seats the lord Messiah at His right hand, as is said The Lord saith unto my lord: “Sit thou at My right hand” (Ps. 110:1), and seats Abraham at His left, Abraham's face will pale, and he will say to the Lord: “My son's son sits at the right, and I at the left!” Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, will comfort Abraham, saying: “Thy son's son is at My right, but I, in a manner of speaking, am at thy right”: The Lord [is] at thy right hand (Ps. 110:5).
Midrash on Psalms, translated by William G. Braude, Yale University Press EditionMy source
Kerwin,
Are all believers, since they are 'sons' of God, going to sit at the right hand of God? Or was Jesus a son in a unique way and only He will sit at the right hand of God?Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 27 2012,20:15) Kerwin,
Then why was He crucified and accused of blasphemy because He claimed to be the Son of God. Do you think He claimed to be the literal supernatural Son of God and not just a common child of God that the Israelites might have also claimed?
They did.John 8:41
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”Jesus was most definitely the Son of God in a way that no one else ever was, or ever will be.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 29 2012,03:33) Kerwin,
Are all believers, since they are 'sons' of God, going to sit at the right hand of God? Or was Jesus a son in a unique way and only He will sit at the right hand of God?Kathi
Kathy,The right hand is the strong hand of most human being. For that reason it has a symbolic significance.
Psalm 118
New International Version (NIV)15 Shouts of joy and victory
resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!
16 The LORD’s right hand is lifted high;Jesus is King of all things in heaven and on earth so all other claims are weaker than his.
Quote (Lightenup @ Feb. 29 2012,09:26) Nick,
What does that mean to you…that 'they are in Jesus Christ?”
Hi LU,
Those that are baptised INTO Christ Jesus, Gal 3.27It is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me. Gal 2.19f
The painful process of CHRIST being formed in us has begun. Gal 4.19
The Spirit of Christ transforms the willing and obedient into the part of his body we were chosen to fill. 1Cor 12.14f
Mike,
Quote Jesus was most definitely the Son of God in a way that no one else ever was, or ever will be. That we agree on. He is Lord Jehovah the Messiah and the Living God if you really want to know. The Aramaic Bible makes that crystal clear in the language of the original NT…not Greek but Aramaic.
Luke 2:11
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“For today, The Savior has been born to you, who is THE LORD JEHOVAH The Messiah, in the city of David.”from here: http://bible.cc/luke/2-11.htm
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 03 2012,07:52) Mike, Quote Jesus was most definitely the Son of God in a way that no one else ever was, or ever will be. That we agree on. He is Lord Jehovah the Messiah and the Living God if you really want to know. The Aramaic Bible makes that crystal clear in the language of the original NT…not Greek but Aramaic.
Luke 2:11
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“For today, The Savior has been born to you, who is THE LORD JEHOVAH The Messiah, in the city of David.”from here: http://bible.cc/luke/2-11.htm
Kathi
Lightenup,Scholars debate whether the New Testament volumes were written in Greek or Aramaic.
Hi Kerwin,
I have been reading a free online book about that recently. It gives strong evidence that the Aramaic NT was before the Greek. Here is an excerpt and a link if you are interested:This book will show you many errors and contradictions in the Greek text, which are solved by the
Aramaic. It will show you variants in the many Greek manuscript families that are explained by the
Peshitta. It will show you how scribal errors in the Greek translations have led to confused beliefs,
compared to crystal-clear teachings in the Aramaic. It will explain many of Jesus’ idioms that have been
misunderstood by those uninitiated in the Semitic languages. It will show you how the original Aramaic
New Testament preserves Jesus’ poetic teachings. It may even save your faith. page 3From: http://www.atour.com/religion/pdf/AramaicPeshittaPrimacy.pdf
I hope you are feeling better Kerwin,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 03 2012,10:29) Hi Kerwin,
I have been reading a free online book about that recently. It gives strong evidence that the Aramaic NT was before the Greek. Here is an excerpt and a link if you are interested:This book will show you many errors and contradictions in the Greek text, which are solved by the
Aramaic. It will show you variants in the many Greek manuscript families that are explained by the
Peshitta. It will show you how scribal errors in the Greek translations have led to confused beliefs,
compared to crystal-clear teachings in the Aramaic. It will explain many of Jesus’ idioms that have been
misunderstood by those uninitiated in the Semitic languages. It will show you how the original Aramaic
New Testament preserves Jesus’ poetic teachings. It may even save your faith. page 3From: http://www.atour.com/religion/pdf/AramaicPeshittaPrimacy.pdf
I hope you are feeling better Kerwin,
Kathi
Kathi,By the grace of God I am feeling better.
I read up on the Peshitta Wikipedia and discovered that the oldest manuscript is 5th Century. The earlier Greek ones are much older.
The Latin Vulgate is a 4th Century translation. The accuracy of the English translation is questioned.
Kerwin,
Wikipedia did not say how old it was but that it became the standard by the 5th century. See here:The Peshitta (Syriac: ܦܫܝܛܬܐ for “simple, common, straight, vulgate”, Arabic:”بسيطة”, sometimes called the Syriac Vulgate) is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition.
The Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD. The New Testament of the Peshitta, which originally excluded certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become the standard by the early 5th century.
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta
That ebook that I linked for you has very convincing arguments to demonstrate that the original NT was written in the Aramaic. Did you look at it?
Here is that link again:
http://www.atour.com/religion/pdf/AramaicPeshittaPrimacy.pdf
I'm so glad you are feeling better
Blessings,
KathiKathy,
The arguments are convincing to some but never the less the majority of experts are not convinced. I am not an expert but I know enough to be highly skeptical about any translation that has translated by only one man. For reasons I do not know there is a limited number of English versions of the Peshitta.
As I stated earlier, the oldest manuscript available is a Fifth Century Copy. It probably existed earlier but its popularity was so low that no manuscripts have survived. I have no idea how the 2nd Century date of origin was obtained.
It is a canon and canonization did start in the middle of the 2nd century with Marcion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
