- This topic has 263 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Adam…..I now see what proclaimer meant, by you thinking Jesus did not have the Devine Nature, You need to realize what the Devine nature is brother, it is in everyone who has the Holy Spirit of God in them, Moses had it, the seventy elders of Israel also had it, King David , even Saul had it , until God removed his Spirit from him and sent him a evil spirit. God is Devine and exists in and through his creation , that is what it means by saying God in all and through all. “GOD LIVES IN US BY HIS HOLY SPIRIT AND THAT IS THE DEVINE NATURE” , brother.
Hi brother Gene, thanks for your post to me. I know the Hebrew Bible talks about God’s spirit resting on human beings for a specific purpose in various contexts as mentioned by you but sharing the divine nature by human beings is some thing foreign to Hebrew Bible. It is purely the invention by the NT writers especially the writer of Colossians 2:9 “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily“,
This has made Christianity a big mess on Messiah who was meant to be a human ruler and not any preexisting spirit being or an angel or a god as being debated by Proclaimer, Mike and others here.
Gene
The bible NEVER SPEAKS THAT HUMAN CAN HAVE DIVINE NATURE …. PARTICIPATE IN DIVINE NATURE YES, BY RECEIVING THE CHARACTER, THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST.
GOD ALONE AND CHRIST HAVE DIVINE NATURE
AMEN!Adam,
You said:
Yes few Jews who are lenient towards Christian Messiah interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Messiah…
There were Jews applying Isaiah 53 to the Messiah before Jesus was born of Mary. Can you see that in your article?
There were Jews applying Isaiah 53 to the Messiah before Jesus was born of Mary. Can you see that in your article?
Hi Sis Kathi, the very purpose of my article was to negate such misinterpretations on Isaiah 53. Please read the final conclusion of my article.
From this we need to conclude as follows:
1. The Rabbis considered in multiple sources the literal meaning of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as Israel. This confirms what Celcum had been told.
2. There is a strongly held alternative view that Isaiah 52:13 should be considered about the Messiah.
3. A weaker case can be made that 53:12 was considered biographical about Moshe.
What we can say for certain is that it was NOT the view of the Rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash that the servant who suffers in Isaiah 53 was the Messiah. It was not so in all the Midrashim, nor even in the majority.
There is NO instance where we see that the Messiah (ben David) is to die based on Isaiah 53. When we look at the facts, it is clear that the missionary claims with regards to Rabbinic belief are unsubstantiated.
JOB 19:25
For I know that my redeemer(SON OF GOD) LIVETH ,
(PRESENT TIME OF JOB)
and that he shall stand
(FUTUR TIME FOR JOB)
at the latter day upon the earth:
Berean…..Our redeemer is God the Father and “HE” redeemed us through the blood of Jesus Christ .
John 3:16,….For , “GOD” , so loved the world that “HE” (God the father) gave, his only begotten Son , that whosoever believes on him should not parish.
Now who was the “real” redeemer ? , was it not God the Father himself who redeemed us? Your teachings rob from the Father And gives it to Jesus, this is something Jesus sure never did. Berean you have to start to question what your hearing , ask God the Father for his Spirit, it will show you the lies they have told you brother.
peace and love to you and yours…………gene
Gene
I am not saying that the Father is not at the very source of our salvation. He accomplished salvation through Jesus Christ his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. JESUS COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO DO NOT HIS OWN WILL, BUT THAT OF THE ONE WHO SENT HIM: HIS FATHER.
WHY ARE YOU DENIING HIS DIVINITY, WITHOUT WHICH YOUR SALVATION IS IMPOSSIBLE?
DIVINITY IS NOT TO BE FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT….
DIVINITY IS TO BE “THEOS”
Berean……God is A Spirit, so if he is “in” you , divinity is present “in” you. With which , no one can be Devine not no one , NOT EVEN THE MAN JESUS. Don’t you understand what he meant when he said ” the Father is “in” me”? Or don’t you know , what Paul meant when he said “You body “IS” THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD”? , because our bodies ‘are” the “TEMPLE” of the Living God, and he is “in” us, and can speak through us, DOES NOT MAKE US HIM . Nor because He was “in” Jesus and the prophets speaking through them, did not make them A God either.
False Christianity has lied to you Berean, time to come out of her, while there’s time . They are lying to you about who Jesus really is, Just as Jesus said they would, “for many shall come in my name saying that “I AM” and “DECEIVE MANY”, THAT STARTED 2000 YEARS AGO, and has completely taken over the original true Churches teachings, it’s about who Jesus really is and was. The TRINITY is a Complete false pagan teaching . My God the father help you to come to see that brother.
peace and love to you and your Berean………….gene
Adam,
I can link you to sites that says that Isaiah 53 is believed by some ancient Jews that it is Messianic. Have you read the book “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” by Josh McDowell?
Adam,
I can link you to sites that says that Isaiah 53 is believed by some ancient Jews that it is Messianic. Have you read the book “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” by Josh McDowell?
Hi Sis Kathi, thanks again for your reply to my post. You can link me that site of Jews but most of the Jews who support Isaiah 53 to Messiah are Christian Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus.
The book “Lord, Liar or Lunatic By Josh McDowell may be a Trinitarian book. You can find his Statement of Faith on his web site https://www.josh.org/about-us/statement-of-faith/ as given below
There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – each of whom possesses equally all the attributes of Deity and the characteristics of personality. Jesus Christ is God, the living Word, who became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. Hence, He is perfect Deity and true humanity united in one person forever.
The irrelevant statement “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” was first coined by C.S. Lewis in his book ‘Mere Christianity’ to support Jesus’ divinity. I am not interested in such Trinitarian statements.
Thanks and peace to you…..Adam
Adam,
Was Jesus a liar or a lunatic according to you? Do you have an opinion? You certainly don’t believe that Jesus is Lord. It is a valid question no matter who has asked it before. Please answer.
Thanks, LU
Adam,
Was Jesus a liar or a lunatic according to you? Do you have an opinion? You certainly don’t believe that Jesus is Lord. It is a valid question no matter who has asked it before. Please answer.
Hi Sis Kathi, sorry I am not such a fanatic to call any fellow human a lunatic. If Jesus was an historical person and a faithful Jew, he certainly must have followed the Hebrew Bible. So I don’t think he called himself as God IMO.
Coming to the irrelevant question, Was Jesus “Lord, Liar or Lunatic”? I think it is a biased question because there can be many other options than these three.
Hope this will answer your query.
Was Jesus the Paschal Lamb for Atoning sins?
I was recently invited by a “Hebrew Christian” acquaintance to a program called “Christ in the Passover”. She told me that Jesus was the ultimate manifestation of the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed each Passover, and that he was killed as a sacrifice to redeem the world from sin. How do Jews respond to these claims?
The exodus of the Jewish people from their long bondage in Egypt 3,300 years ago was preceded by ten plagues that G-d visited upon our oppressors. The last of these plagues was the slaying of the Egyptian first-born.
The Passover lamb was a yearly sacrifice that was eaten in commemoration of G-d’s passing over the houses of the Israelites when He slew the Egyptian first-born (Exodus 12). The Paschal lamb had nothing to do with atonement from sin.
If, indeed, Jesus’ death was supposed to be an atoning sacrifice, it would have been more appropriate to liken him to the special goat that was offered on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This goat served expressly as an atonement for the sins of the Jewish people (Leviticus 16).
Missionaries frequently point out that although the two people who according to Christian scripture were crucified beside Jesus had their legs broken with a mallet to ensure that they would die before the Sabbath, Jesus had already expired by the time the Roman soldiers came to check whether he was still alive.
They believe that this enhances their claim that Jesus was the Paschal lamb since, according to the Bible, there was a prohibition against breaking any of the bones of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12).
Of course, if missionaries are determined to play this game, it is important that their arguments be consistent. If they capitalize on the alleged similarity between Jesus and the Passover lamb regarding the law forbidding the breaking of its bones, Jesus would also have to fulfill the other legal requirements of the Passover sacrifice. There is no justification in seizing only upon the single aspect that was fulfilled, while ignoring the numerous times that Biblical rules were observed only in the breach.
For instance, the Bible teaches that any sacrifice that was blemished or maimed in any way was disqualified (Leviticus 22:19-22). However, before Jesus was crucified, the Christian Bible claims that he was beaten and whipped by Roman soldiers. These wounds would have disqualified Jesus from being a legitimate sacrifice.
In addition, the Christian scriptures claim that Jesus was circumcised as a child. According to the Apostle Paul (Phillipians 3:2), circumcision is considered “mutilation”, which would also disqualify Jesus from being a proper sacrifice. Finally, the Christian Bible alleges that Jesus’ side was pierced by the spear of a Roman soldier, which also would invalidate him as a ritual sacrifice.
However, the missionaries’ more fundamental error is their insistence that it is only through faith in Jesus that one’s sins can be absolved. The Tanach (Jewish Bible) is very clear in its teaching that we always have the ability to atone for our sins by prayer and repentance (I Kings 8:47-50; Hosea 14:1-3; II Chronicles 7:14; Ezekiel 18; Ezekiel 33:14-16; Jeremiah 36:3; Isaiah 55:6-7; Jonah 3:10; Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 16:6; etc.). https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/the-so-called-hebrew-christian-seder
Hi Adam,
You said: Coming to the irrelevant question, Was Jesus “Lord, Liar or Lunatic”? I think it is a biased question because there can be many other options than these three.
Please enlighten me as to what the other option might be in your opinion.
After you address that, please tell me if the Father in the NT is the God of truth, a liar, or fill in the blank, when He identifies the Son as the YHVH that laid the foundation of the world and the heavens are the works of the Son’s hands.
Please enlighten me as to what the other option might be in your opinion.
After you address that, please tell me if the Father in the NT is the God of truth, a liar, or fill in the blank, when He identifies the Son as the YHVH that laid the foundation of the world and the heavens are the works of the Son’s hands.
Hello Sis Kathi, sorry I am not the right person to enlighten you as you had already named me as a Skeptic on this Forum. Yes there are other options to call Jesus other than Lord and God. If Jesus was an historical person and a Jew, his Jewish counterparts might have called him a fellow Jew, Brother, even a Rabbi if he was the one in such a position. The list goes on like this for any historical person other than so called Lord and God which the Trinitarian Apologists like C.S. Lewis claimed.
Coming to your quotation of Heb 1 on Jesus being addressed as God and the Lord, who laid the foundations of the world; This is purely the interpretation of the writer of the Hebrews, placing Jesus the supposed Messiah above the Angels and even at par with the creator God. He simply copied and pasted the Hebrew scriptures which originally refer to God Yahweh and assigned them to Jesus as if God himself addressed Jesus as God. This is purely his own interpretation by picking the Hebrew scriptures in bits and parts from their original context.
This is one example of how the NT writers manipulated Hebrew scriptures to suit their agenda.
Hi Adam,
You said:
This is purely the interpretation of the writer of the Hebrews, placing Jesus the supposed Messiah above the Angels and even at par with the creator God. He simply copied and pasted the Hebrew scriptures which originally refer to God Yahweh and assigned them to Jesus as if God himself addressed Jesus as God. This is purely his own interpretation by picking the Hebrew scriptures in bits and parts from their original context.
Prove it.
Hi Adam,
You said:
This is purely the interpretation of the writer of the Hebrews, placing Jesus the supposed Messiah above the Angels and even at par with the creator God. He simply copied and pasted the Hebrew scriptures which originally refer to God Yahweh and assigned them to Jesus as if God himself addressed Jesus as God. This is purely his own interpretation by picking the Hebrew scriptures in bits and parts from their original context.
Prove it.Hi Sis Kathi, you want me to prove the statements I made on the writer of the Hebrews. Here I am bringing the arguments from Christian perspective and not from Jewish;
According to the author of Hebrews, not only was it important for reasons of a true historical perspective to recognize that God had been speaking to mankind through the Old Testament, but this was also important if the full range and significance of his revelation through his Son was to be understood. The Old Testament scriptures could therefore be used to present a much richer and ampler understanding of Jesus as the true Mediator between God and man than could have been grasped if the Christian were to restrict himself or herself, to the use of the New Testament writings alone. In this then we are given once again the key to this fundamental position adopted by the early Christian community and given such a central place in this book. The Old Testament writings remain valid and authoritative for the Christian as scripture, but they must be interpreted throughout in the light of the revelation of Jesus as God’s Son. The kind of “Judaizing” interpretations which evidently had tended to impose themselves upon early Christian communities, and which appear in no small measure to have provided a continued temptation for several churches to adopt, are thereby dismissed and argued out of court. We know too that, as the church grew during the second and third Christian centuries, a forceful attempt was made from within certain Christian churches to leave aside the Old Testament altogether as no longer needful for the Christian. Yet this too is not a position which the writer to the Hebrews would support. The Old Testament remains authoritative, he asserts, but only when it is read and interpreted in the light of Jesus as God’s Son. This then explains the further citations from the Old Testament which establish the elevated Christology by which Jesus is set as the supreme Revealer of God.
The relative status of Jesus as God’s Son, over against the position of angels, is argued on the basis of a number of citations. Angels are indeed glorious and awesome servants of God (so Heb. 1:7, citing Ps. 104:4), but they are nevertheless not as awesome and glorious as God’s Messiah-Son, who is addressed in the Psalms as one who is on a level with God himself (Heb. 1:8-9, citing Ps. 45:6-7). The same point is reiterated by a further quotation from the Psalms, this time because it was originally addressed to the “Lord (Yahweh)” and now interpreted as applicable to Jesus (Ps. 102:25, 27, quoted in Heb. 1:10-12). A concluding point that Jesus, as God’s Son, is so much more exalted than all angels is made by citing Ps. 110:1, another psalm originally addressed to the Davidic king like Psalm 2 (Heb. 1:13). From the Old Testament it can be learned that angels are no higher than ‘ ‘ministering spirits sent forth to serve’ ‘ (1:14), whereas Jesus showed himself to be “faithful over God’s house as a son” (3:6).
The recognition that Jesus, as the Son of God, was so much higher than the angels must inevitably have raised a number of questions in the minds of the readers of this book, and quite evidently the author anticipated that it would do so. If Jesus were in reality so far above the angels, how had it come about that he had appeared as a man, and was known as a human being who had walked the paths of Galilee? This leads on to a second series of quotations from the Old Testament, this time from the Psalms and the Prophets. How should the Christian understand the seemingly contradictory claims that Jesus was fully and truly a man, and yet had a status and a role to play in the divine purpose far above that of any angel? By first quoting Ps. 8:4-6 in Heb. 2:6-8 the author shows the elevated position which the Old Testament accords to man, addressed in the psalm in a representative way as the ”Son of Man.” This is the destiny which God has planned for mankind, but it has not yet been fulfilled and remains in the realm of hope for the future (2:8). It is no longer an uncertain and unattainable hope, however, since its unique glories have been made possible through Jesus who has fully and completely accepted the pain and sufferings of humanity. He has done so even to the extent of undergoing the death that every man and woman must experience (2:9). So the author skillfully combines what is said about mankind in Ps. 8:4 through its reference to the “Son of Man” by showing that Jesus, as both Son of God and Son of Man, makes it possible for the human race to fulfill the destiny that God has planned for it, and which is declared in the Old Testament.
I think the above are more favourable to you but it certainly proves my logic of stating that it was the 9personal) interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures by the Hebrews’ writer to make Jesus’ status above the Angels and at par with God.
If you want I can quote Jewish logics on this. I don’t think this is required now.
Adam,
You article should have a reference as to the source of the article so credit is given to the author and so it can be searched out. Please add a link to what you copy and paste in the future. I did find the article here:
The article is not suggesting that the author cunningly set out to connect the stories of the OT to Jesus. The article is applauding the author of showing the fuller pictures of OT scripture by showing that Jesus is who is being referred to. The article is in no way discrediting the author of Hebrews as having an agenda to make a connection where there wasn’t supposed to be a connection.
I have no idea why you used that article to prove that the author of Hebrews was dishonestly manipulating the OT to fit into a dishonorable agenda.
You have failed to prove your belief regarding the author of Hebrews. You should reread it and learn what it is telling you.
God bless, LU
I have no idea why you used that article to prove that the author of Hebrews was dishonestly manipulating the OT to fit into a dishonorable agenda.
You have failed to prove your belief regarding the author of Hebrews. You should reread it and learn what it is telling you.
I also don’t know what do you want from me Sis. I have quoted the Christian arguments on how the writer of Hebrews interpreted Hebrew Scriptures to suit his agenda on Jesus. What else you need?
Please remember the original Hebrew scriptures which this writer quoted were meant for the Lord (Yahweh). This is the point I wanted stress here.
Adam,
You did not prove that the writer of Hebrews interpreted the Hebrew scriptures wrong with that article. The article agrees that YHVH is being associated with Jesus and it is not condemning that but emphasizing that the Jews did not understand the full meaning of their scriptures and how they related to Jesus as YHVH who laid the foundation of the earth among other things.
Your article does not prove that the writer of Hebrews was not inspired by God to connect the OT passages with Jesus. It actually supports that notion by not condemning that connection. Don’t you see? The article supports the book of Hebrews as declaring truth. You present it as proof that it doesn’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
