Jesus is just a messenger of the word of GOD not GOD .

[cjab]

Your delusion won't work. To ask Christ in John 14:14 refers to praying to Him.

As you seem to be calling Christ delusional by his demanding prayer "in his name", we'd best stop here.

What does your delusional "appropriate form in order" mean?

The order in heaven is to be acknowledged always. It is given in 1 Cor 11:3. If you do not acknowledge this order, you aren't in spiritual accord with deity.

 

[Fred]

As you seem to be calling Christ delusional by his demanding prayer "in his name", we'd best stop here.

Yes, please stop denying that Christ said "ask Me" in reference to praying to Him.

The order in heaven is to be acknowledged always. It is given in 1 Cor 11:3. If you do not acknowledge this order, you aren't in spiritual accord with deity.

Which does nothing to refute the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

Your delusions are worse than I thought.

Get help!

 

[rossh]

cjab is avoding the fact that John 14:14 teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

Yes,,, the only way to the Father is through the Son... Matt 11:27+

 

[cjab]

Yes, please stop denying that Christ said "ask Me" in reference to praying to Him.

So you have recourse to lying.

Which does nothing to refute the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

Lying by inferring that I said he wasn't a proper recipient of prayer.

Your delusions are worse than I thought.

Get help!

A teacher without integrity. I don't recognize you as of Christ at all, amply fulfilling my predictions about spiritual worship degenerating into carnal worship by adopting an unscriptural approach to worship.

 

[Fred]

So you have recourse to lying.

An assertion without proof.

Just for you:

  - The fear of the Lord (YHWH) = The fear of the Lord (Jesus)

You don't seem to understand that prayer is one thing (προσεύχομαι) and calling upon (ἐπικαλέω) another. Your eternal attempt to confound and conflate the Greek language is getting ridiculous. To call upon the name of the Lord means to pray to the Lord. Theological Lexicon of the New...

forums.carm.org

 

[Gary Mac]

And pray to Jesus which Jesus taught.

John 14:14
If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. (NASB)

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The unity of the Son with the Father finds expressions in the fact that prayer in the name of Jesus can be directed to either Father or Son (5:276, onoma, Hans Bietenhard).

Yes Jesus asked of God many times in prayer to his God. Jesus even prayed to his Gof for his God to be in you and you be in Him as one as Jesus was one in Him in John 17.

He asked of God to forgive them they know not what they do.

He asked of his God to let this cup pass from him.

Jesus asked a lot in the name of his Father who is God.

Me being Gods son as well talk to my father without ceasing just as Jesus did. We are one, Luke 17:20-21. The kingdom of God is within me just as He was in Jesus no different at all.

 

[rossh]

cjab is avoding the fact that John 14:14 teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

I do believe that you are correct with that. Amen and God Bless you...

 

[rossh]

So you have recourse to lying.

Lying by inferring that I said he wasn't a proper recipient of prayer.


A teacher without integrity. I don't recognize you as of Christ at all, amply fulfilling my predictions about spiritual worship degenerating into carnal worship by adopting an unscriptural approach to worship.

,, your suppositions, you need deal with all that.
BTW, what/who is " christ " ? Yeshua the Messiah ? Why do you believe that we all need YOUR " recognition ?

 

[SeventhDay]

By "the time of the Messiah's arrival" I'm assuming you mean around the turn of the Common Era... the two entities you refer to were designations during the kingdom period for the southern and northern kingdoms respectively --- Judah and Benjamin comprised the first and the remaining tribes comprised the second. During this period, the south regarded the north as rebels against the rule of David's descendants, which polemic became tinged with religious invective. When the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom in the late-8th century BCE, much of its populace were exiled to other lands and lost to history while a remnant of its populace fled south to Judah and was absorbed into its people. As such, "the house of Israel" ceased to exist as a political entity, but the terminology was co-opted in Judah... so, for example, by the first century Jews as a religious group could be referred to as belonging to "the house of Israel" (Matt 10:6; 15:24). The trajectory was thus one of antagonism at first, then appropriation. While focused on the time of "the house of Israel" proper (ie. the kingdom period), a good resource if you're interested in how Israel was regarded by Judah is Daniel E. Fleming's The Legacy of Israel in Judah's Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Thanks for your input!

God bless you.

 

[cjab]

,, your suppositions, you need deal with all that.
BTW, what/who is " christ " ? Yeshua the Messiah ? Why do you believe that we all need YOUR " recognition ?

"Like one who grabs a dog by the ears is a passerby who meddles in a quarrel not his own. " Prov 26:17

 

[Our Lord's God]

Jesus
Jesus is just a messenger of the word of GOD not GOD .
A son of GOD not GOD the FATHER.
He shows us that when he shows us how to pray .
Matthew 6:9 (KJV) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
He did not say pray to him , but to the FATHER.

Matthew 12:50 (KJV)
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
He will be all things to you but not your GOD .

1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
How more clear must it be ?

These tell us about Jesus . That he is a messenger only and not GOD .
John 3:14 (KJV)
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Look what happened with the serpent.
Numbers 21:8-9 (KJV)
8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
2 Kings 18:4 (KJV)
He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Isaiah 42:1 (KJV) Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 42:8 (KJV) I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

See how Jesus compares himself to the serpent , so we don’t make the same error as those people did with worshipping the serpent.

He is a faithful servant of the FATHER.
Same as we must be .

If he was GOD the FATHER why would he deliver the kingdom
to the FATHER ?
1 Corinthians 15:24 (KJV) Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

In Scripture, there is only one God, our Lord Jesus Christ's God. The only God is his God and there is no God but his God.

 

[cjab]

In Scripture, there is only one God, our Lord Jesus Christ's God. The only God is his God and there is no God but his God.

True, but the risen Christ possess the form, properties and the glory of God, and acts as ruler/firstborn over all of creation.

 

[GeneZ]

In Scripture, there is only one God, our Lord Jesus Christ's God. The only God is his God and there is no God but his God.

And? There is only one Humanity of Christ. That being, the second nature of the union of God and man uniquely found in Christ alone...

Christ can relate one nature to the other to explain to us how we are to relate to God.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

False. Jesus is the living Word, e.g. "the word was made flesh and dwelt among us....etc." Jesus is not a messenger of the word, but embodies God's word. He IS the Word, not a messenger of the Word.

It is only those who hear the Word who can hear what God has to say. It is only those who can see Christ who can see God, e.g. "if you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father".

This is a remarkable quotation to refute your own position. Christ IS the glory of God. (Hebrews 1:3; Matthew 16:27: Mark 8:38) He is NOT another.

Jesus doesn't compare himself to a serpent. God instructs Moses to attach a "seraph" to a pole, and Moses complies by constructing a "naXash of brass". These terms are synonymous, and mean "shining one", or "burning one". The only reason serpents are referred to as "naxashim" is because of the burn of their bite. The comparison is in that they're both lifted up and draw all those who will be saved.. It's a type for the crucifixion.

Yes, And I think the serpent on the stick types the fact that on thecross Jesus bore the sins of the world. The snake does not symbolize Jesus, so much as it symbolizes what he did on the cross.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes, And I think the serpent on the stick types the fact that on thecross Jesus bore the sins of the world. The snake does not symbolize Jesus, so much as it symbolizes what he did on the cross.

God asks Moses to make a "seraph" and place it on a pole. A seraph is NOT a serpent. Moses complies with God's command by placing a "naXash of brass". NaXash is the word used in Genesis referring to who was talking to Eve. A seraph is a celestial being and so is a naXash or "burning one" or 'shining one'. However serpents are also referred to as naxash because of the burn of their bites. It doesn't then follow that Moses placed a serpent upon a pole. It's a Hebraism or a word play.

The serpent is a title reserved for Satan, not Christ.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

God asks Moses to make a "seraph" and place it on a pole. A seraph is NOT a serpent. Moses complies with God's command by placing a "naXash of brass". NaXash is the word used in Genesis referring to who was talking to Eve. A seraph is a celestial being and so is a naXash or "burning one" or 'shining one'. However serpents are also referred to as naxash because of the burn of their bites. It doesn't then follow that Moses placed a serpent upon a pole. It's a Hebraism or a word play.

The serpent is a title reserved for Satan, not Christ.

what you are saying makes sense, if you do not read the passage it occurs in and just make a theoretical assumption based on possible word meanings devoid of context

 

[shnarkle]

what you are saying makes sense, if you do not read the passage it occurs in

I'm not only citing the passage it occurs in, but pointing out the usage of the term.

and just make a theoretical assumption based on possible word meanings devoid of context

There are no theoretical assumptions, nor possible word meanings being presented. I'm pointing out the origins of the term as well as its usage within the context. You're projecting. You're the one assuming that since snakes were causing this problem, God is asking Moses to place a snake on a pole. He isn't and I've pointed out why. If you'd care to address what I actually posted instead of pretending your Strawman claims are relevant, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[Alexander the adequate]

I'm not only citing the passage it occurs in, but pointing out the usage of the term.

There are no theoretical assumptions, nor possible word meanings being presented. I'm pointing out the origins of the term as well as its usage within the context. You're projecting. You're the one assuming that since snakes were causing this problem, God is asking Moses to place a snake on a pole. He isn't and I've pointed out why. If you'd care to address what I actually posted instead of pretending your Strawman claims are relevant, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Num 21:6 and 21:8 + 9 use the same word to describe what is biting them and what they create on the pole. So while the word used in all three places can have other meanings, the best translators have decided that the reference is identical and means the same object,
the other idea of seraphim does not fit the context.

 

[shnarkle]

Num 21:6 and 21:8 + 9 use the same word to describe what is biting them and what they create on the pole. So while the word used in all three places can have other meanings, the best translators have decided that the reference is identical and means the same object,
the other idea of seraphim does not fit the context.

Your citations do not exist in a vacuum. Furthermore, these Hebraisms or wordplays are pervasive throughout scripture. To then ignore them only results in confusion and misinterpretation as well as losing out on the deeper meanings within these texts.

For example, the gospel writers point out how gruesome and horrifying crucifixion can be yet John's gospel portrays Christ's crucifixion as "glorious". Likewise, it is that shining celestial being, Satan who is holding a conversation with Eve in the garden rather than the figurative "serpent".

Moreover, the scene in Numbers is an example of a spiritual battle rather than one against literal serpents. Need I remind you of these useful observations from Paul himself?

 

[Alexander the adequate]

Your citations do not exist in a vacuum. Furthermore, these Hebraisms or wordplays are pervasive throughout scripture. To then ignore them only results in confusion and misinterpretation as well as losing out on the deeper meanings within these texts.

For example, the gospel writers point out how gruesome and horrifying crucifixion can be yet John's gospel portrays Christ's crucifixion as "glorious". Likewise, it is that shining celestial being, Satan who is holding a conversation with Eve in the garden rather than the figurative "serpent".

Moreover, the scene in Numbers is an example of a spiritual battle rather than one against literal serpents. Need I remind you of these useful observations from Paul himself?

I think you are misreading numbers to make the serpents metaphorical or spiritual. That is not what the Bible is portrarying. Do you think the entire story of the Jews escape from Egypt is a metaphor, but never literally took place?