- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Nick,
I have addressed your question, here:Quote Yes.
Scriptures attributing the resurrection to the:Father; Gal 1:1, 1 Thess 1:10
Jesus; Joh 2:19-21, Joh 10:18, Matt 26:61, 27:40
Holy Spirit: Romans 8:11, 1 Pet 3:18But the scriptures that speak of the resurrection will never harmonise for those who reject Christ as being deity.
Now since I have indeed answered your questiond, will you kindly answer mine. Here they are:
John 2
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21But he spake of the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Please answer 'yes' or 'no' to the following questions:
1. Did Jesus ever make a false claim?
2. Did Jesus claim to raise up this temple in Joh 2:19?
3. Did John verify that Jesus meant the temple of his body in Joh 2:21?
4. Do you believe He did [raise Himself from thre dead]?Since youre an advocate for “keeping it simple” and sternly rebuke others for over-reading scriptures, I think you should apply to yourself the same standard that you apply to others. Dont you? I await you answers.
Hi DVD,
I do not see you suggesting God did not raise Jesus.You say God [the Father]did, Jesus raised himself and the Spirit raised Jesus. Do you not see conflict here. If you can resolve this conflict by showing that either the Father
Or
The Spirit
Or
Jesus raised himself we might be able to converse.I do not speak trinitarianese.
I can see your frightened of Joh 2:19-21. So I will ask you another question, after Jesus ascended who sent the Holy Spirit?
Hi DVD,
It is you who is evasive or confused on the issue of who raised Jesus .
But moving on
The Father sent the Holy Spirit-in the name of Jesus.Joh 14
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you1 Joh 3
22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.Hi DVD,
Lk 24.47
” And behold I am sending forth the promise of my Father upon you;but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high”
Jn 15.26
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send you from the Father , that is the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me, and you will testify also, because you have been with me from the beginning”
Jn 16.7
” But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away;for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you”
Jn 14.16
” I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that he may be with you forever, that is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him or know him, but you know him because he abides with you and will be in you”
Jn 14.25
” These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you”I say that the Father has ultimate authority so I believe the last verse is how it really happens. It is very apparent that the Spirit of Truth is also the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit was not given till Jesus was glorified. You cannot take these verses out of the context in which they are found because when Jesus says he will come back and they will know him it will be as the Spirit of Christ which is from God. So that Spirit ultimately comes from God and is under God. But as it is also the Spirit of Christ he can rightly say he sent it.
What do you think?To WhatIsTrue,
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ June 02 2005,14:14) Did you even get the point I was making? Do you understand that YHWH called Israel His son and firstborn? Do you understand that these terms were used metaphorically throughout the Hebrew scriptures? That's not me speaking, that is scripture speaking.
A teacher teaches, a proud man says I am right and comes across as condescending. You know you may be right with that, you may not, and I am certainly open to that possibility as truth is what I seek. Even if that truth comes from the heart of a proud man, I will still accept the truth.I have never said that I was above being teachable. I am so teachable because I love the truth. But I will sit at the feet of honourable men.
If you are right regarding God's son being Israel and not Yeshua before he came to this earth, that still doesn't negate that Christ pre-existed. For he said himself that he existed before Abraham and God created all things for him and through him.
True believers have to be aware that the antichrist spirit is thriving in this day. Anyone who says that Jesus didn't come in the flesh is antichrist. The antichrist spirit doesn't deny Christ's existence, it denies his annointing. For Christ means 'anointed'. They say that he was a mere man who was born as a man and had no glory before that. They deny his divinity.
If you indeed believe that Christ is a mere man, then we are rightly on different sides.
DVD is it hard to accept that God does it through his son. That indeed the son does many things, but only that which he sees his Father doing. He says many things too, but only that which he hears his Father saying.
For sure God uses his son. He created the universe through him and he saved this world though him. But it was God who did all these things. If there was no God, then there would be nothing.
An example of what I am saying is found in Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John….
You see it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, yet even the Revelation of Jesus was given to him by God. There is no point arguing that Jesus is God because God works through him and shows him all things. It is simple. There is one God and this one God has a son. That makes 2. One is God, the other God's son. This is an important part of the gospel. Why change the gospel for a lie?
2 Timothy 2:14-17
Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus….To WhatIsTrue,
I have heard this before from Ramblinrose and others who follow Anthony Buzzard. The idea that God speaks of things as if they are now being used to negated things that are spoken of as existing in the past. I have even debated many of these points before.
E.g., you said that 'root' can also mean 'shoot' and therefore Jesus is the shoot and offspring of David and not the root. But when I looked at other verses that used the same word 'root', it was indeed talking of the word 'root' as we know it.
- the axe is laid at the root.
- plucked up by the root.
- root of bitterness.
- having no root in themselves.
- and if the root be holy, then so are the branches
In fact I could not see one other scripture that used the word root as you are using it. Can you show me 2 or 3 other NT scriptures that use the word root as you have used it.
If you think, about it a shoot is the part of the plant that grows out of the ground and then the branches come from that. The shoot later on becomes the trunk. So Yeshua is the root and the offspring of David. Not the branch and the offspring. He was before him and he came from his family line. Yet those that follow Anthony Buzzard deny this.
Think about it WhatIsTrue, who ever heard of the branches coming before the trunk or the vine? All creation was made through Christ and for him.
I will reply to your other rebuttals soon enough.
T8 wrote:
Quote A teacher teaches, a proud man says I am right and comes across as condescending. You know you may be right with that, you may not, and I am certainly open to that possibility as truth is what I seek. Even if that truth comes from the heart of a proud man, I will still accept the truth. Then why bother calling me names? Why not just refute my words, which I always back up with scripture.
T8 wrote:
Quote If you are right regarding God's son being Israel and not Yeshua before he came to this earth, that still doesn't negate that Christ pre-existed. For he said himself that he existed before Abraham and God created all things for him and through him. I never said that Israel was God's literal son. I have merely said that sonship is a metaphor that was first used of Israel that also applies to the Messiah.
T8 wrote:
Quote In fact I could not see one other scripture that used the word root as you are using it. Can you show me 2 or 3 other NT scriptures that use the word root as you have used it. I have already given you the prophecy which directly relates to this issue. It says there will be a root of Jesse in the future. At the time this prophecy was written Jesse was already dead. Notice that it also says “a” root, which implies that there is more than one root of Jesse, which indeed Jesse had more than one son.
Quote Isaiah 11:10
“And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious.T8 wrote:
Quote I have heard this before from Ramblinrose and others who follow Anthony Buzzard. The idea that God speaks of things as if they are now being used to negated things that are spoken of as existing in the past. I have even debated many of these points before. I have quoted neither Ramblinrose nor Anthony Buzzard. I have given you scripture. If you were sincerely looking at my post, you would have noticed that. The concept comes right out of scripture.
Nick,
You have said that I can not teach in this forum anymore because of my statements about the book of John. I will respect your wishes if that is what you truly want. However, I find it interesting that you deny John 2:19 out of the other side of your mouth while calling me an apostate for recognizing that it is in disharmony with the rest of scripture. The only reason that you are able to teach that God raised Yeshua from the dead, and that Yehsua did not raise himself, is because you ignore John 2:19 in favor of other scriptures outside the book of John. You may wish to disqualify yourself from teaching in this forum as well.
DVD,
Just like Nick's silence on John 2:19 speaks volumes, so does your silence on the questions, (and scriptures), that I have put to you.
Make no mistake though from my comments about the book of John. The book of John refutes your position as well.
Quote
John 17:3
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”John 8:17-18
“It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”Even in the book of the bible most likely to be misunderstood as promoting the deity of the Messiah, Yeshua is still shown to be a completely seperate being from the one true God.
WIT,
If you had read my posts recently you would know that I have addressed John 2.19 on two occasions. But for the sake of those who take seriously your attack on me I will repeat it. I do not understand everything and scripture study is not a competition to prove oneself but a sharing of what God has written through men.I make no apology for my defense of the bible even if it upsets some who attack it, as you attacked the book of John. I try not to 'cast pearls before swine' whose only use of scripture is to demean it and elevate themselves .
The established scriptural fact is that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. As I have shown there are about 20 verses that say this and that makes it irrefutable. Very few scriptural facts have this amount of proof shown them.
So we must look at Jn 2.19 it must be read in this context. No scripture can be broken and all must line up and it is our work to try to do that. Jn 2.19 also has two other scriptures that say the same thing but both are quotes of that scripture from those who testify against Jesus at his trial.
Jesus was filled with the Ho;y Spirit. Jesus is a prophet and an instrument of all of the power of God. God's Spirit spoke in prophecy in Jn 2.19.
Does that verse contradict all the others that say God raised him? No
Does it prove Jesus is his own Father? No
Does it show Jesus is part of a trinity God. NoNick,
Fair enough. What you have done with John 2:19, I have done with the book of John. I seek to understand it in light of other scriptures.
Do you still ask that I resign from this forum? (I will respect your decision whether or not I agree with it.)
WIT,
I do not want you to resign from the forum. I personally would miss your sincere and often helpful contributuions.
You have only disqualified yourself from teaching here as you have attacked the integrity of the Word of God. It surprises me that you would do so as you are the only person to do that in all the contributions I can remember.Nick,
You have not addressed Joh 2:19-21 at all. When you have answered the four questions I posed in regard to it, then you may say you have addressed it. You have already stated that you believe John's gospel to be inspired and in doing so have given your stamp of approval to the verses.t8,
I didnt ask by whose authority the Holy Spirit was sent, I simply asked Who was it that sent Him? So by writing that all things are done through God is a convenient 'out clause' for you to dispell these seemingly contractictory scriptures, but this approach fails to address the core issue, which is; Who did the act of the sending.WhatIsTrue,
If you scroll back a page or two yo will see that I indeed did write that I would address your remaining questions. Patience please, im busy. But, since you are willing to effectively disregard the entire gospel of John because it doesnt fit your doctrinal beliefs (this should set off a warning bell for you WhatIsTrue), I cant see the point really. But I will be true to my word.Nick,
I am sorry. I guess I misunderstood your previous post about me not “teaching” here anymore. I am happy to know that I am not being kicked out of the forum.
By the way, I am not a teacher of the Word. I am a student. If I am in error, may YHWH guide me to a teacher who can show me where I am wrong. However, as a serious student, I am not going to downplay any of the significant issues that I uncover in my studies. Honestly, I see a lot of potential disharmony in the book of John with the rest of scripture, and I have laid out exactly where I see those potential problems, (opening myself up to sincere criticism and rebuke). If someone wants to show me where I am wrong, I welcome the lesson. Just be aware that I did not come to these conclusions capriciously.
DVD,
Why not help us all and put it together for us as clearly I am inadequate for the task in your eyes.Whatistrue,
Should we throw out 1st and 2nd John as well as Revelation too??!Same author.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ June 01 2005,23:00) Artizan007, You have asked very good questions about some verses in scripture that seem to strongly indicate that the Son pre-existed his earthly life. To be perfectly honest, the answer that I have to your questions is not an easy one, but I share it with you because you have asked sincerely.
You will notice that all of the verses that you quoted come from the book of John. (There are a few more in there that you missed.) Well, I am convinced that the book of John is one of the most difficult books of the bible to harmonize with the rest of scripture. In it, you will find what seem to be doctrines that aren't taught anywhere else in scripture, as well as major events that no other book of the bible records. For that reason, I always look for a second witness to the book of John before I accept something within its pages at face value. Otherwise, a lot of disharmony is wrought within scripture as a whole.
For example, in the book of John, and no where else,
1. Yeshua raises himself. (John 2:19-21)
2. Yeshua is called 'God' by one of his disciples. (John 20:28)
3. Yeshua breaks the law. (John 5:18)
4. Yeshua raises Lazarus from the dead*. (John 11)
5. Yehsua washes his disiples' feet before the last supper. (John 13)
6. Yeshua imparts the Holy Spirit on his disciples by breathing on them. (John 20:22)
7. Yeshua gives his disciples the power to forgive sins. (John 20:23)(*This is most interesting because in John 12:17-18, Lazarus' resurrection is given as the reason why people believed in him when he rode into Jerusalem before he was crucified. Yet, no other scripture mentions this spectacular event.)
Furthermore, there are some major events in Yeshua's life that are either completely missing from the book of John, or documented very ambiguously.
1. It is not clear in the book of John that Yeshua was baptized during his encounter with John the Baptist. (John 1:32-34)
2. Yeshua is not tempted of Satan in the book of John, but in other gospels the temptation marks the beginning of his ministry.
3. The pivotal confession of Peter that Yeshua is the Messiah, (Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; Matthew 16:13-16) is completely missing. In the book of John, Peter is told that Yeshua is the Messiah before Peter even begins to follow him. (John 1:41-42)
4. Instead, Nathaneal declares that Yeshua is the Son of God, before Yeshua even does his first miracle. (John 1:49)Also, some strange teachings, (some of which are the hallmark of the Catholic church), are taught by Yeshua in John that are found no where else.
1. He tells his disciples that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. In the other gospels, Yeshua turns the bread and wine of the last supper into symbols of his sacrifice, calling to mind the Passover lamb that they were celebrating. In John, Yeshua says these things without any reference to symbolism whatsoever, and not in connection to Passover at all, and many disciples leave him because it is a “hard saying”. (John 6:53-58)
2. Yeshua tells his disciples that they will see angels ascending and descending on him. (John 1:51)
3. Yeshua transforms Mary into the mother figure that she retains in Catholicism to this very day. (John 19:26-27)In short, a lot – and I mean a lot – of figurative language is being used in the book of John. (Read the first three gospels and then read John and you will see the stark difference.) So, it is difficult to tell what should be taken literally and what is a mere figure of speech. But absent a second witness, I would not subscribe to any doctrine that is primarily established in the book of John.
Hi WIT,
The book of John was never designed to be a witness to the three other gospels-two witnesses for each fact to be confirmed is enough[2Cor 13]. It does sometimes witness to them but not commonly. It complements them and adds wisdom and depth to the straight evidence and teachings in the other three. It intimately shows Jesus as a man with friends and family and emotions.
As you say it is filled with allegory as John shows also in Revelation. Sometimes we miss the simple trying to digest what looks complicated.
Jn 12 with the washing of the feet is all about forgiveness in our daily walk.
Jn 6 with eating the flesh is all about feeding on the Word of God.
Jn 19 shows that receiving the Spirit is not the same as being baptised in the Spirit.I love the warmth and wisdom of John and am glad God gave it to us. If we only had the other three it would be too easy to put God in a legalistic box. He is bigger than our minds and wisdom is vindicated by it's children. We need the Spirit to understand John and we must submit our minds to be reeducated by the Spirit so that we may attain to the mind of Christ.
Hope these things help.Hi Jn 5.15
” The man went away and told the Jews it was Jesus who had made him well And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But he answered them
“my Father is working until now, and I myself am working”
For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but also calling God his Father, making himself equal with God.”Did Jesus break the Law?
According to scripture the Law was in force “until the time of John”[Lk 16.16]
That time had passed. Jesus said he was “Lord of the Sabbath”-I believe him. He told his accusers in another place they would pull their ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath and so was healing lawful anyway. The vinedressers had bound up the original principles in Law with minute detail. That was never the intention of God though since the Pharisees had been sitting in the seat of Moses he gave them that authority. But now someone greater than Moses and Abraham was here who had been given all authority by God.
The charge that being the Son of God means equality with God still is alive among the antichrist group.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2005,21:30) DVD,
Why not help us all and put it together for us as clearly I am inadequate for the task in your eyes.
Then why not be adequate and type 'yes' or 'no' to the four questions I asked. Simple really.There are many contradictory passages throughout the Bible for those who deny that Jesus is indeed God. Here is another:
When you were born again and recieved the Spirit of God, exactly whose spirit was it that you recieved?
a) The Father's
b) Jesus'
c) Both
d) NeitherChoose an option.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
