For those of you that admit Jesus is the Son of God but not God!

jamesh

Active member
And yes, there are many of you including Roger and Trevor just to name two. Starting at John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." As I go through this you will notice a "trend" which will become obvious as it relates to Jesus being the Son of God.

So what did Jesus say at John 5:17 for the Jews to come to the conclusion that they said He "was making Himself equal with God?" "But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." Jesus was claiming that God the Father was His personal or actual Father. In fact, at Luke 2:49 (when Jesus was a youngster) the parents of Jesus were looking for Him. "And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me?" Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

As a side not, according to Luke 2:46 their Son had been missing three days. Luke 2:47, "And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers." Also, I don't want to get into a discussion on whether Jesus broke the Sabbath at John 5:18, He did not. So now, let's go to John 8:59, "Therefore they/the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him." What did Jesus say here to prompt the Jews to want to kill Him? John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born or "before Abraham sprang into existence I am."

At John 10:30, "I and the Father, We are one." How are they one? It goes without saying they are one in purpose but this is not the point Jesus was making at John 10:30. John 10:31, "The Jews took up stone again to stone Him." At vs32, "Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" John 10:33, "The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God."

Now, notice how Jesus answers them. What He says (and here Jesus is being His own commentary) "Has it not been written in you Law, "I said you are gods?" His answer has nothing to do with Him and the Father being one in purpose. John 10:35, "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be broken), vs30, do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and SENT INTO THE WORLD, "You are blaspheming, because I said, "I am the Son of God?"

Verse 37, "If I do the works of My Father (notice again "My Father), do not believe Me." Vs38, "but if I do them though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." So what was the point Jesus was making by Him quoting Psalm 82:6?

What Jesus is simply doing is taking the Jew's statement about Him blaspheming to its logical conclusion to show they are being inconsistent. In effect, Jesus is saying "If you say that I am blaspheming, you must also hold that God is blaspheming because He said to those by whom the word of God came, "ye are gods." Or to put this another way, Jesus' usage of Psalms 82:6 was to imply that what the Scriptures call humans "allegorically," He was in actuality since He does what only God can do, hence John 10:38. So the point of what Jesus said at John 10:30 was to show Him and His Father are one in nature or essence, that's why no one can snatch the sheep out of His hands or the Father's, John 10:27-28.

Now, at John 19:7, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out the Son of God." This is from the trial record but I want to go to Matthew's trial record starting at Matthew 26:57-67. I'm not going to quote it all but highlight the main points. The high priest Caiaphas is presiding, vs57. At vs63, "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether (1) You are the Christ/Messiah and (2) the Son of God." Vs64, Jesus said to him, You have said it; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

So the high priest is asking Jesus to swear at to who He is? Are you indeed the Christ/Messiah and are you "the Son of God." At Luke 22:70 Jesus says, "Yes, I am." At Matthew 26:65, the high priest tore his robes saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;" So what was the blasphemy? And what "Law" did Jesus break that is at Leviticus 24:16?

The following is a purpose statement from John at John 20:30-31 after Thomas mad his declaration to Jesus Himself at John 20:28, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Vs30, Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; vs31, but these have been written that you may believe that (1) Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, (2) the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

So what about the phrase or term, "the Son of God?" The Jews have what is called "idioms." One of those idioms is the idiom "son of." In the Old Testament you have "Sons of prophets," refer to men belonging to a prophetic band. 1 Kings 20:35. Sons of goldsmiths at Nehemiah 3:31. This idiom show membership in a profession or a guild. How about "Sons of exile? Were Jews who had lived in exile, Ezra 4:1. Sons of affliction are afflicted ones, Proverbs 31:5. This idiom shows participation in a state or condition.

Another idiom shows a certain character. Son of valor at 1 Samuel 14:52. Son of murder at 2 Kings 6:32, denotes a murderer. Then there is the idiom to show "possessing a certain nature." The expression "son of man." clearly exhibits the use of the word "son" to show the possession of a certain nature. Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." This idiom is frequently used at Psalm 80:17, Job 25:6 and at many other places.

Just as this idiom is used in the Old Testament it is also used in the New Testament. Son of peace, Luke 10:6 refers to a peaceful person. Who do you think the "son of perdition is? John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3, is the lost one. All the examples in the above categories show that we are being consistent with a well established usage of an Old Testament idiom as well as in the New Testament. Which brings us to the "Son of God" idiom when applied to Jesus Christ, means possessing the nature of, displaying the qualities of, God.

Since we are dealing then with a Semitic idiom, we can test ourselves for accuracy in the understanding of it as applied to Christ, by observing how the Jews responded or reacted when Jesus taught concerning His relation as Son to the Father. Like I stated earlier, "what did Jesus say to cause the Jews to want to kill Him for blasphemy? Contrary to some, the Jews knew and understood exactly what Jesus was saying and claimed. The one and only main problem the Jews had, like some around here, they did not believe Jesus.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
And yes, there are many of you including Roger and Trevor just to name two. Starting at John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." As I go through this you will notice a "trend" which will become obvious as it relates to Jesus being the Son of God.

So what did Jesus say at John 5:17 for the Jews to come to the conclusion that they said He "was making Himself equal with God?" "But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." Jesus was claiming that God the Father was His personal or actual Father. In fact, at Luke 2:49 (when Jesus was a youngster) the parents of Jesus were looking for Him. "And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me?" Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

First off, Jesus making God personally his Father is hardly the same thing as saying that God was his Father in regards to his actual substance or ontology. For Jesus also made God the personal Father of all who learned how to pray from him when he told them to address God as "Our Father who is in heaven".
As a side not, according to Luke 2:46 their Son had been missing three days. Luke 2:47, "And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers." Also, I don't want to get into a discussion on whether Jesus broke the Sabbath at John 5:18, He did not. So now, let's go to John 8:59, "Therefore they/the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him." What did Jesus say here to prompt the Jews to want to kill Him? John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born or "before Abraham sprang into existence I am."
So you admit that the Jews were wrong about their accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath but not about him claiming to be God's Son in regards to his ontology right?

That means that that you also admit then that John was not giving his own personal view of what he himself believed here but was only revealing what the Jews believed about what Jesus said and meant.

It really wasn't about what he said but about the fact that they hated him for the sermon of the 8 woes and in which in front of all of the people Jesus called them a bunch of hypocrites.

Therefore, they were looking for something in his words to condemn him with and because they couldn't find anything all by themselves, their Father the Devil helped them out with this by twisting their OT scriptures within their minds to make them say what they didn't and Jesus even called them on this also.


John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
At John 10:30, "I and the Father, We are one." How are they one? It goes without saying they are one in purpose but this is not the point Jesus was making at John 10:30. John 10:31, "The Jews took up stone again to stone Him." At vs32, "Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" John 10:33, "The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God."

Your above analogy is a good example of how the Devil can easily twist words to make them say just about anything in order to accuse, but it is easily proven to be flawed also.

For Jesus was not speaking of his identity here in John 10:30 but rather his being in unity with the Father concerning the care of the sheep while he was still with them and which was the context also and I can also prove this from his words in John 17:11 and 21-23 which is a similar context being he is speaking of the care of the sheep here also.

For in John 17:11 and 21-23, Jesus is going to leave the sheep and so he is praying to the Father that the sheep may be in unity and one like he and the Father are in the care for one another being he is going to leave them and go to the Father.

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.


Notice, he prays that they would be one the same way that he and the Father are one and it is the same context concerning the care of the sheep as John 10:30 was also.

By the way, the Jews didn't even take him saying that he and the Father was one as why they wanted to stone him, for if you read on, it was again because he called God his Father and not because he said he was in unity with the Father over the sheep.


Now, notice how Jesus answers them. What He says (and here Jesus is being His own commentary) "Has it not been written in you Law, "I said you are gods?" His answer has nothing to do with Him and the Father being one in purpose. John 10:35, "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be broken), vs30, do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and SENT INTO THE WORLD, "You are blaspheming, because I said, "I am the Son of God?"

Verse 37, "If I do the works of My Father (notice again "My Father), do not believe Me." Vs38, "but if I do them though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." So what was the point Jesus was making by Him quoting Psalm 82:6?

What Jesus is simply doing is taking the Jew's statement about Him blaspheming to its logical conclusion to show they are being inconsistent. In effect, Jesus is saying "If you say that I am blaspheming, you must also hold that God is blaspheming because He said to those by whom the word of God came, "ye are gods." Or to put this another way, Jesus' usage of Psalms 82:6 was to imply that what the Scriptures call humans "allegorically," He was in actuality since He does what only God can do, hence John 10:38. So the point of what Jesus said at John 10:30 was to show Him and His Father are one in nature or essence, that's why no one can snatch the sheep out of His hands or the Father's, John 10:27-28.

First off, Jesus was not doing what only God can do, but rather God was doing it through him and Jesus was working only as God's agency through which God was doing the miracles and even when Jesus forgave sins, if you read all of his words like in John 12: and 14, he very clearly tells us that they weren't his words that he spoke but rather those of God that he gave him to speak.

See Acts 2:36 for Peter very clearly reveals that it was God doing all those miracles through Jesus as his agency.

Your argument on why he quoted Psalm 82:6 is quite lame, for by it he was very clearly revealing to them that he was not claiming to be equal unto God by calling God his Father and that because God even called them gods himself and Jesus never called himself a god but only the Son of God and of which God called them also.

Again your idea about John 10:30 can easily be seen as flawed by Jesus' own words also in John 17:11 and 21-23 where he prayed that the Sheep would be one the same way as he and the Father are also one.

I will have to stop here lest I use to many characters because of how long your post is already, but God called David his Son in the singular in Psalm 2:7 and also David's son Solomon and 2 Samuel 7:14 and only after them, the writer of Hebrews used the same two passages to speak of Jesus their descendant also.

This reveals the idiom used in the OT to be called "God's Son" as meaning that the one called this was a human heir anointed from David's promised line of the descendants to reign over his people and through the last and greater heir of his descendants Jesus Christ also the whole world.

It was never used to speak of a literal Son from God's own ontology and therefore their accusations of Jesus about his calling himself the Son of God were not taught them in their OT scriptures but they were the twisting's of their OT scriptures with the help of their Father the Devil and just like Jesus gave answer to them about it also.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
So what about the phrase or term, "the Son of God?" The Jews have what is called "idioms." One of those idioms is the idiom "son of." In the Old Testament you have "Sons of prophets," refer to men belonging to a prophetic band. 1 Kings 20:35. Sons of goldsmiths at Nehemiah 3:31. This idiom show membership in a profession or a guild. How about "Sons of exile? Were Jews who had lived in exile, Ezra 4:1. Sons of affliction are afflicted ones, Proverbs 31:5. This idiom shows participation in a state or condition.

Another idiom shows a certain character. Son of valor at 1 Samuel 14:52. Son of murder at 2 Kings 6:32, denotes a murderer. Then there is the idiom to show "possessing a certain nature." The expression "son of man." clearly exhibits the use of the word "son" to show the possession of a certain nature. Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." This idiom is frequently used at Psalm 80:17, Job 25:6 and at many other places.

Just as this idiom is used in the Old Testament it is also used in the New Testament. Son of peace, Luke 10:6 refers to a peaceful person. Who do you think the "son of perdition is? John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3, is the lost one. All the examples in the above categories show that we are being consistent with a well established usage of an Old Testament idiom as well as in the New Testament. Which brings us to the "Son of God" idiom when applied to Jesus Christ, means possessing the nature of, displaying the qualities of, God.

Since we are dealing then with a Semitic idiom, we can test ourselves for accuracy in the understanding of it as applied to Christ, by observing how the Jews responded or reacted when Jesus taught concerning His relation as Son to the Father. Like I stated earlier, "what did Jesus say to cause the Jews to want to kill Him for blasphemy? Contrary to some, the Jews knew and understood exactly what Jesus was saying and claimed. The one and only main problem the Jews had, like some around here, they did not believe Jesus.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
The above is your biggest error of all here, for just because "son of man" is used to speak of one who has the same ontology as his Father who is also a man, this doesn't mean that the same idiom used "Son of God" means a literal Son of God in regards to having God's same nature and in fact just the opposite is seen in the OT.

I noticed that you conveniently left out any references to how the idiom Son of God is used in the OT also James and we both know why and it is because the references in the OT prove you to be wrong about this completely and you don't even want to believe you are wrong but you are nonetheless.

By the way, what the Jews falsely believed about the idiom is irrelevant completely to what the OT scriptures actually revealed it to mean, for they didn't get their idea about it concerning Jesus from their OT at all and so where did they get it from then James?

John 8:44, is your answer, for this is where Jesus called them on it and told them, you are of your father the Devil and who was the father of the lies they were believing about him and also the murder that they were planning for him as well!

The passage below is David speaking of what God actually decreed first to him and according to a promise that God made unto him and all anointed from his descendants that they would always reign over his people for him and Jesus was the greatest descendant and who would fulfill the entirety of what is written in Psalm 2.

Psalm 2:7 I (David) will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

He said to me (David), “You are my son;
today I have become your father.


Notice folks, for God calls David his Son in the singular and himself as his Father also.

This proves that the idiom "Son of God" used in the OT does not mean a literal son of like in other situations, for God does not reproduce himself or have a literal Son of his own nature either.


Here is another below.

2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see in the above passage that the one God is speaking of and which is Solomon in this first application is not a Son with the same nature as God because of what he says about him in verse 14

So the idiom "Son of God" as used in the OT never meant a literal Son of God and these two verses were also used by the writer of the book of Hebrews to speak of Jesus who was also a descendant both of David and Solomon and therefore the greatest of the heirs of David and Solomon in Hebrews 1:5.

Hebrews 1:
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”[a]?
Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”


It is obvious therefore that when Jesus called God his Father and himself God's Son he was revealing himself to be that greatest of all anointed descendant from the promised line of David's descendants and who would be the final and greatest heir and human Son of God to sit upon his throne and rule not only over God's people but the whole world that God created also.
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
And yes, there are many of you including Roger and Trevor just to name two. Starting at John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." As I go through this you will notice a "trend" which will become obvious as it relates to Jesus being the Son of God.

So what did Jesus say at John 5:17 for the Jews to come to the conclusion that they said He "was making Himself equal with God?" "But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." Jesus was claiming that God the Father was His personal or actual Father. In fact, at Luke 2:49 (when Jesus was a youngster) the parents of Jesus were looking for Him. "And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me?" Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers. All the sons of God are those who have been begotten of God their own Father.

So are you here testifying to us that you are not born of God and He is not your own Father?

Please be clear.

As a side not, according to Luke 2:46 their Son had been missing three days. Luke 2:47,

God went missing? Do tell.

"And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers." Also, I don't want to get into a discussion on whether Jesus broke the Sabbath at John 5:18, He did not.

He did not break the Sabbath but He did claim to be equal to God? Hmmm, how did you manage that interpretation?

So now, let's go to John 8:59, "Therefore they/the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him." What did Jesus say here to prompt the Jews to want to kill Him? John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born or "before Abraham sprang into existence I am."

Well, he certainly didn't attempt to testify about himself or attempt to glorify himself concerning who he is.

Unless of course, you believe he was a hypocritical liar?

At John 10:30, "I and the Father, We are one." How are they one?

The context actually tells us.

Jesus actually tells us.

Do you care? Or do you only care what the fabricated traditions of men say?

It goes without saying they are one in purpose but this is not the point Jesus was making at John 10:30. John 10:31, "The Jews took up stone again to stone Him." At vs32, "Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" John 10:33, "The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God."

So...... you get your theology from children of the devil? Please be clear.

Now, notice how Jesus answers them. What He says (and here Jesus is being His own commentary) "Has it not been written in you Law, "I said you are gods?" His answer has nothing to do with Him and the Father being one in purpose.

Why would it? He is responding to their accusation.

John 10:35, "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be broken), vs30, do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and SENT INTO THE WORLD, "You are blaspheming, because I said, "I am the Son of God?"
Verse 37, "If I do the works of My Father (notice again "My Father), do not believe Me." Vs38, "but if I do them though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." So what was the point Jesus was making by Him quoting Psalm 82:6?

That these Jews were hypocrites because as rulers of Israel they believed Psalm 82:6 verse applied to THEM.

What Jesus is simply doing is taking the Jew's statement about Him blaspheming to its logical conclusion to show they are being inconsistent. In effect, Jesus is saying "If you say that I am blaspheming, you must also hold that God is blaspheming because He said to those by whom the word of God came, "ye are gods." Or to put this another way, Jesus' usage of Psalms 82:6 was to imply that what the Scriptures call humans "allegorically," He was in actuality since He does what only God can do, hence John 10:38. So the point of what Jesus said at John 10:30 was to show Him and His Father are one in nature or essence, that's why no one can snatch the sheep out of His hands or the Father's, John 10:27-28.

That's quite the fabrication you have there.

Now, at John 19:7, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out the Son of God."

Funny that they didn't say, "He made Himself out to be our God" isn't it?

This is from the trial record but I want to go to Matthew's trial record starting at Matthew 26:57-67. I'm not going to quote it all but highlight the main points. The high priest Caiaphas is presiding, vs57. At vs63, "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether (1) You are the Christ/Messiah and (2) the Son of God." Vs64, Jesus said to him, You have said it; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

So the high priest is asking Jesus to swear at to who He is? Are you indeed the Christ/Messiah and are you "the Son of God." At Luke 22:70 Jesus says, "Yes, I am."

No he didn't. He said, "You are saying so." You need to go and read John 5:31 again.

At Matthew 26:65, the high priest tore his robes saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;" So what was the blasphemy? And what "Law" did Jesus break that is at Leviticus 24:16?

These Jews believed Jesus thought himself to be the one chosen by God to be God's Christ. If he wasn't, that would be blaspheming the name of God. Why is that not obvious to you>

The following is a purpose statement from John at John 20:30-31 after Thomas mad his declaration to Jesus Himself at John 20:28, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

Did you not believe what Jesus taught at John 14:9? According to Jesus, WHO did Thomas see at John 20:28?

Vs30, Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; vs31, but these have been written that you may believe that (1) Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, (2) the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

So what about the phrase or term, "the Son of God?"

What about it? Are you going to fabricate something up for us?

Just as this idiom is used in the Old Testament it is also used in the New Testament. Son of peace, Luke 10:6 refers to a peaceful person. Who do you think the "son of perdition is? John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3, is the lost one. All the examples in the above categories show that we are being consistent with a well established usage of an Old Testament idiom as well as in the New Testament. Which brings us to the "Son of God" idiom when applied to Jesus Christ, means possessing the nature of, displaying the qualities of, God.

And you got that from where?

And why do you not know that true believers are partakers of the divine nature who are being conformed into the image of Christ who is the image of God?

Since we are dealing then with a Semitic idiom, we can test ourselves for accuracy in the understanding of it as applied to Christ, by observing how the Jews responded or reacted when Jesus taught concerning His relation as Son to the Father. Like I stated earlier, "what did Jesus say to cause the Jews to want to kill Him for blasphemy?

Where?

What did Stephen say?

Contrary to some, the Jews knew and understood exactly what Jesus was saying and claimed.

Why are you contradicting Jesus? He stated that they did not understand him and could not hear what he was saying. So why are you contradicting him?

Maybe you just don't care what they truth is because you are too busy idolizing the traditions of men?


The one and only main problem the Jews had, like some around here, they did not believe Jesus.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

jamesh

Active member
First off, Jesus making God personally his Father is hardly the same thing as saying that God was his Father in regards to his actual substance or ontology. For Jesus also made God the personal Father of all who learned how to pray from him when he told them to address God as "Our Father who is in heaven".

So you admit that the Jews were wrong about their accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath but not about him claiming to be God's Son in regards to his ontology right?

That means that that you also admit then that John was not giving his own personal view of what he himself believed here but was only revealing what the Jews believed about what Jesus said and meant.

It really wasn't about what he said but about the fact that they hated him for the sermon of the 8 woes and in which in front of all of the people Jesus called them a bunch of hypocrites.

Therefore, they were looking for something in his words to condemn him with and because they couldn't find anything all by themselves, their Father the Devil helped them out with this by twisting their OT scriptures within their minds to make them say what they didn't and Jesus even called them on this also.


John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.


Your above analogy is a good example of how the Devil can easily twist words to make them say just about anything in order to accuse, but it is easily proven to be flawed also.

For Jesus was not speaking of his identity here in John 10:30 but rather his being in unity with the Father concerning the care of the sheep while he was still with them and which was the context also and I can also prove this from his words in John 17:11 and 21-23 which is a similar context being he is speaking of the care of the sheep here also.

For in John 17:11 and 21-23, Jesus is going to leave the sheep and so he is praying to the Father that the sheep may be in unity and one like he and the Father are in the care for one another being he is going to leave them and go to the Father.

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.


Notice, he prays that they would be one the same way that he and the Father are one and it is the same context concerning the care of the sheep as John 10:30 was also.

By the way, the Jews didn't even take him saying that he and the Father was one as why they wanted to stone him, for if you read on, it was again because he called God his Father and not because he said he was in unity with the Father over the sheep.




First off, Jesus was not doing what only God can do, but rather God was doing it through him and Jesus was working only as God's agency through which God was doing the miracles and even when Jesus forgave sins, if you read all of his words like in John 12: and 14, he very clearly tells us that they weren't his words that he spoke but rather those of God that he gave him to speak.

See Acts 2:36 for Peter very clearly reveals that it was God doing all those miracles through Jesus as his agency.

Your argument on why he quoted Psalm 82:6 is quite lame, for by it he was very clearly revealing to them that he was not claiming to be equal unto God by calling God his Father and that because God even called them gods himself and Jesus never called himself a god but only the Son of God and of which God called them also.

Again your idea about John 10:30 can easily be seen as flawed by Jesus' own words also in John 17:11 and 21-23 where he prayed that the Sheep would be one the same way as he and the Father are also one.


I will have to stop here lest I use to many characters because of how long your post is already, but God called David his Son in the singular in Psalm 2:7 and also David's son Solomon and 2 Samuel 7:14 and only after them, the writer of Hebrews used the same two passages to speak of Jesus their descendant also.

This reveals the idiom used in the OT to be called "God's Son" as meaning that the one called this was a human heir anointed from David's promised line of the descendants to reign over his people and through the last and greater heir of his descendants Jesus Christ also the whole world.

It was never used to speak of a literal Son from God's own ontology and therefore their accusations of Jesus about his calling himself the Son of God were not taught them in their OT scriptures but they were the twisting's of their OT scriptures with the help of their Father the Devil and just like Jesus gave answer to them about it also.
What you said right here is enough to "shoot" down your Biblical ignorance. "See Acts 2:36 for Peter very clearly reveals that it was God doing all those miracles through Jesus as his agency." Luke 2:11, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, WHO IS Christ the Lord."

This means Jesus was not "made" anything according to you. Now look at the context at Acts 2:30 where God swore an oath to David that the Son of God would come through David's physical line. At Acts 2:31 it says David looked ahead and spoke of the RESURRECTION of the Christ/Messiah. He was NOT abandoned in Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. At Acts 2:32 Peter says we were all witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead. Moreover, at John 2:19 Jesus clearly stated He would raise Himself and at vs21 John says, "He was speaking of the temple of His body."

At Acts 2:34 David says, "The Lord said to MY LORD, sit at My right hand etc. Then we come to Acts 2:36 which you clearly quoted out of its context. When it says, "that God had made Him both Lord and Christ it means that the resurrection "DECLARED" Jesus Christ both the Lord and Christ.

This is brought out clearly by the Apostle Paul at Romans 1:1-4. "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, vs2, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, vs3, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, vs4, WHO WAS DECLARED THE SON OF GOD with power BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord."

Your also wrong about John 10:30, "I and the Father WE are one." I clearly said they are one in purpose but that is not the point Jesus making regarding John 10:30. The Jews understood what Jesus meant, but you don't. Right away at John 10:31, "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him." Why, for being one in purpose? If it is the point that Jesus was making that He and the Father are one in purpose, why did Jesus bring up Psalm 82:6? What does that verse have to do with being one in purpose? In short, you've been "refuted."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
What you said right here is enough to "shoot" down your Biblical ignorance. "See Acts 2:36 for Peter very clearly reveals that it was God doing all those miracles through Jesus as his agency." Luke 2:11, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, WHO IS Christ the Lord."

So I misquoted it just like anyone could have and especially from the same sermon in the same chapter and it should have been Act 2:22, but Acts 2:36 also proves that God made Jesus the Lord and Christ and therefore what do you think you proved by bringing that up James?

Acts 2:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this:
God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”



This means Jesus was not "made" anything according to you.

LOL! Where did you ever get that nonsense from? Read Acts 2:36 in the above again dude.
Now look at the context at Acts 2:30 where God swore an oath to David that the Son of God would come through David's physical line. At Acts 2:31 it says David looked ahead and spoke of the RESURRECTION of the Christ/Messiah. He was NOT abandoned in Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. At Acts 2:32 Peter says we were all witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead. Moreover, at John 2:19 Jesus clearly stated He would raise Himself and at vs21 John says, "He was speaking of the temple of His body."
Now I will reveal your own ignorance about this James, for have you never noticed in verse 22, that John used the passive voice verb translated as raised to explain what he and the other disciples understood Jesus' figurative language to be meaning in John 2:19? You didn't did you?


Sorry but in John 2:19 Jesus wasn't saying that he would return his life back to his body but only that when God did, he would raise himself up from where he laid in the tomb and walk out of it alive from the dead.

This is what John and the other disciples heard him say also and I will now prove that to you by what John said in John 2:22.

For he was obviously speaking in figurative language to start with James and which shows that the disciples had more on the ball with their understanding of him than you do, for absolutely none of them including also Paul, ever wrote in their inspired works that he raised himself from the dead.


John 2:21-22 "But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised (passive voice) from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken".

Therefore, there is no way that Jesus could be both passive and active in his having his life restored unto him from being dead but there is a way that he could be active in raising himself up from where he was laid after he died once God restored his life back into his body and which is what both John and the other disciples obviously understood him to be saying by his figurative language about it.


By the way, just in case you want to jump over to John 10:17-18 and claim that Jesus was saying that he would raise himself from the dead there also, I can also prove from his very words in that text that he was not claiming that he would raise himself from the dead there either.

God gave Jesus a commandment, that if he would obey him in laying down his life in death, that he would receive it back again from the dead and the authority that he speaks of by which he would, was God's word on it because God cannot lie.

If you look at verses 17, Jesus first said this, "Therefore my Father loves me, because I lay down my life, "hina" in order that, I might receive it back again".

Notice that Greek word "hina" for it means in order that, and therefore what Jesus was clearly saying here, is that God gave him a commandment that if he would lay his life down in death, he would receive it back again because of his obedience to the commandment and his authority on that, was God's word on it because God cannot lie James.

It is quite like what God commands us also, that if we lay down our life in repentance and faith, we also will receive it back again from death and both in this life and also after we physically die and we have that on God authority likewise because God who said it cannot lie.


At Acts 2:34 David says, "The Lord said to MY LORD, sit at My right hand etc. Then we come to Acts 2:36 which you clearly quoted out of its context. When it says, "that God had made Him both Lord and Christ it means that the resurrection "DECLARED" Jesus Christ both the Lord and Christ.

Nonsense, for that isn't what it says and I have already shown you in the above that Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead and by the way, in that very same sermon Peter very clearly said that God raised Jesus from the dead and not that Jesus raised himself from the dead.

32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[c]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

This is brought out clearly by the Apostle Paul at Romans 1:1-4. "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, vs2, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, vs3, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, vs4, WHO WAS DECLARED THE SON OF GOD with power BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord."

That is a totally different context than both John 2:18-22 and Acts 2:22-36 James and that is your problem here, you are jumping around and taking verses out of their proper context instead of paying attention to what is said in each context and in Acts 2:22-36 Peter very clearly tells us that God did not abandon his Son to remain in Hyades but raised him from the dead to sit at his right hand.

Therefore the context very clearly reveals that God indeed made Jesus the Lord and Christ just like it says.

Now concerning Romans 1:1-4, there is a big difference between the word "made" in Acts 2:36 and the word "declared" here in Romans 1:1-4 and they do not and cannot mean the same thing either, but I will let you look into that so you don't embarrass yourself again with the same foolishness.
Your also wrong about John 10:30, "I and the Father WE are one." I clearly said they are one in purpose but that is not the point Jesus making regarding John 10:30. The Jews understood what Jesus meant, but you don't. Right away at John 10:31, "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him." Why, for being one in purpose? If it is the point that Jesus was making that He and the Father are one in purpose, why did Jesus bring up Psalm 82:6? What does that verse have to do with being one in purpose? In short, you've been "refuted."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
No, but you are the one who is wrong, for one of your biggest mistakes is your evaluation of what Jesus meant by what he said because of how the apostate Jews responded to it and which is really quite foolish and you even admit that their accusing him of breaking the Sabbath was false.

Nevertheless in everything else you take their actions as your evidence of what he was meaning instead of God's word from the whole of scriptures and here in John 17:11 and 21-23 and written by the same John that wrote John 10:30, John recorded Jesus' words in his prayer that very clearly reveal what he meant in John 10:30 and you reject it.


By the way, Jesus said right in that same context of John 10 when they were going to stone him and he quoted Psalm 82, that it was because he said that he was the Son of God by calling God his Father that is what the were accusing him of blasphemy for and not because of his saying he was one with God about the sheep.

Furthermore, in John 17:11-21-23, three times and written by the same John who wrote John 10:30 also, Jesus prayed that his sheep would be one just like he and the Father are one and if you want to remain ignorant, then go right ahead James but you are going to pay for your ignorance if you do.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
First off, Jesus making God personally his Father is hardly the same thing as saying that God was his Father in regards to his actual substance or ontology. For Jesus also made God the personal Father of all who learned how to pray from him when he told them to address God as "Our Father who is in heaven".

So you admit that the Jews were wrong about their accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath but not about him claiming to be God's Son in regards to his ontology right?

That means that that you also admit then that John was not giving his own personal view of what he himself believed here but was only revealing what the Jews believed about what Jesus said and meant.

It really wasn't about what he said but about the fact that they hated him for the sermon of the 8 woes and in which in front of all of the people Jesus called them a bunch of hypocrites.

Therefore, they were looking for something in his words to condemn him with and because they couldn't find anything all by themselves, their Father the Devil helped them out with this by twisting their OT scriptures within their minds to make them say what they didn't and Jesus even called them on this also.


John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.


Your above analogy is a good example of how the Devil can easily twist words to make them say just about anything in order to accuse, but it is easily proven to be flawed also.

For Jesus was not speaking of his identity here in John 10:30 but rather his being in unity with the Father concerning the care of the sheep while he was still with them and which was the context also and I can also prove this from his words in John 17:11 and 21-23 which is a similar context being he is speaking of the care of the sheep here also.

For in John 17:11 and 21-23, Jesus is going to leave the sheep and so he is praying to the Father that the sheep may be in unity and one like he and the Father are in the care for one another being he is going to leave them and go to the Father.

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.


Notice, he prays that they would be one the same way that he and the Father are one and it is the same context concerning the care of the sheep as John 10:30 was also.

By the way, the Jews didn't even take him saying that he and the Father was one as why they wanted to stone him, for if you read on, it was again because he called God his Father and not because he said he was in unity with the Father over the sheep.




First off, Jesus was not doing what only God can do, but rather God was doing it through him and Jesus was working only as God's agency through which God was doing the miracles and even when Jesus forgave sins, if you read all of his words like in John 12: and 14, he very clearly tells us that they weren't his words that he spoke but rather those of God that he gave him to speak.

See Acts 2:36 for Peter very clearly reveals that it was God doing all those miracles through Jesus as his agency.

Your argument on why he quoted Psalm 82:6 is quite lame, for by it he was very clearly revealing to them that he was not claiming to be equal unto God by calling God his Father and that because God even called them gods himself and Jesus never called himself a god but only the Son of God and of which God called them also.

Again your idea about John 10:30 can easily be seen as flawed by Jesus' own words also in John 17:11 and 21-23 where he prayed that the Sheep would be one the same way as he and the Father are also one.


I will have to stop here lest I use to many characters because of how long your post is already, but God called David his Son in the singular in Psalm 2:7 and also David's son Solomon and 2 Samuel 7:14 and only after them, the writer of Hebrews used the same two passages to speak of Jesus their descendant also.

This reveals the idiom used in the OT to be called "God's Son" as meaning that the one called this was a human heir anointed from David's promised line of the descendants to reign over his people and through the last and greater heir of his descendants Jesus Christ also the whole world.

It was never used to speak of a literal Son from God's own ontology and therefore their accusations of Jesus about his calling himself the Son of God were not taught them in their OT scriptures but they were the twisting's of their OT scriptures with the help of their Father the Devil and just like Jesus gave answer to them about it also.
All believers are sons of God by ADOPTION.
Jesus Christ ALONE is THE LITERAL Son of God, LITERALLY begotten.
Case closed.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers. All the sons of God are those who have been begotten of God their own Father.

So are you here testifying to us that you are not born of God and He is not your own Father?

Please be clear.



God went missing? Do tell.



He did not break the Sabbath but He did claim to be equal to God? Hmmm, how did you manage that interpretation?



Well, he certainly didn't attempt to testify about himself or attempt to glorify himself concerning who he is.

Unless of course, you believe he was a hypocritical liar?



The context actually tells us.

Jesus actually tells us.

Do you care? Or do you only care what the fabricated traditions of men say?



So...... you get your theology from children of the devil? Please be clear.



Why would it? He is responding to their accusation.




That these Jews were hypocrites because as rulers of Israel they believed Psalm 82:6 verse applied to THEM.



That's quite the fabrication you have there.



Funny that they didn't say, "He made Himself out to be our God" isn't it?



No he didn't. He said, "You are saying so." You need to go and read John 5:31 again.



These Jews believed Jesus thought himself to be the one chosen by God to be God's Christ. If he wasn't, that would be blaspheming the name of God. Why is that not obvious to you>



Did you not believe what Jesus taught at John 14:9? According to Jesus, WHO did Thomas see at John 20:28?



What about it? Are you going to fabricate something up for us?



And you got that from where?

And why do you not know that true believers are partakers of the divine nature who are being conformed into the image of Christ who is the image of God?



Where?

What did Stephen say?



Why are you contradicting Jesus? He stated that they did not understand him and could not hear what he was saying. So why are you contradicting him?

Maybe you just don't care what they truth is because you are too busy idolizing the traditions of men?
Spiritually begotten is NOT the same as LITERALLY begotten as Jesus Christ is.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
All believers are sons of God by ADOPTION.
Jesus Christ ALONE is THE LITERAL Son of God, LITERALLY begotten.
Case closed.

TRINITARIANS believe all believers are sons of God by ADOPTION whereas Jesus is the Son of God by ASSUMPTION.

Trinitarian Catholic Catechism 466 says... Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.

TRINITARIANS, can you explain the difference between a human nature being "assumed" versus being "adopted"?
 

jamesh

Active member
Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers. All the sons of God are those who have been begotten of God their own Father.

So are you here testifying to us that you are not born of God and He is not your own Father?

Please be clear.



God went missing? Do tell.



He did not break the Sabbath but He did claim to be equal to God? Hmmm, how did you manage that interpretation?



Well, he certainly didn't attempt to testify about himself or attempt to glorify himself concerning who he is.

Unless of course, you believe he was a hypocritical liar?



The context actually tells us.

Jesus actually tells us.

Do you care? Or do you only care what the fabricated traditions of men say?



So...... you get your theology from children of the devil? Please be clear.



Why would it? He is responding to their accusation.




That these Jews were hypocrites because as rulers of Israel they believed Psalm 82:6 verse applied to THEM.



That's quite the fabrication you have there.



Funny that they didn't say, "He made Himself out to be our God" isn't it?



No he didn't. He said, "You are saying so." You need to go and read John 5:31 again.



These Jews believed Jesus thought himself to be the one chosen by God to be God's Christ. If he wasn't, that would be blaspheming the name of God. Why is that not obvious to you>



Did you not believe what Jesus taught at John 14:9? According to Jesus, WHO did Thomas see at John 20:28?



What about it? Are you going to fabricate something up for us?



And you got that from where?

And why do you not know that true believers are partakers of the divine nature who are being conformed into the image of Christ who is the image of God?



Where?

What did Stephen say?



Why are you contradicting Jesus? He stated that they did not understand him and could not hear what he was saying. So why are you contradicting him?

Maybe you just don't care what they truth is because you are too busy idolizing the traditions of men?
You know, it's really hard to pick who the top five "Biblically ignorant" person is around here, but you are sure up there, especially when you make ignorant statements like the following. "God went missing."

And since you so big on "context" you said, "What did Stephen say?" I'll tell you what he said in dying breath at Acts 7:59,60, "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Vs60, And falling on his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" "And having said this, he fell asleep."

So why would Stephen in his dying breath pray to Jesus Christ (who you say is not God but a man like the rest of us) to receive his spirit? I can see it now, you would be praying to Jim Jones asking him for some more Kool Aid. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
You know, it's really hard to pick who the top five "Biblically ignorant" person is around here, but you are sure up there, especially when you make ignorant statements like the following. "God went missing."

According to you, God did go missing.

And since you so big on "context" you said, "What did Stephen say?" I'll tell you what he said in dying breath at Acts 7:59,60, "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Vs60, And falling on his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" "And having said this, he fell asleep."

What did he say that men stoned him to death?

So why would Stephen in his dying breath pray to Jesus Christ (who you say is not God but a man like the rest of us) to receive his spirit?

Because, as your Bible says, God put this man in charge.


I can see it now, you would be praying to Jim Jones asking him for some more Kool Aid. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
You know, it's really hard to pick who the top five "Biblically ignorant" person is around here, but you are sure up there, especially when you make ignorant statements like the following. "God went missing."

And since you so big on "context" you said, "What did Stephen say?" I'll tell you what he said in dying breath at Acts 7:59,60, "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Vs60, And falling on his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" "And having said this, he fell asleep."

So why would Stephen in his dying breath pray to Jesus Christ (who you say is not God but a man like the rest of us) to receive his spirit? I can see it now, you would be praying to Jim Jones asking him for some more Kool Aid. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”


John 14:6 Jesus answered, “
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,


I certainly wouldn't say that you are Biblically literate James and I also noticed that you haven't responded to my reply to your post yet, so why haven't you?
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
TRINITARIANS believe all believers are sons of God by ADOPTION whereas Jesus is the Son of God by ASSUMPTION.

Trinitarian Catholic Catechism 466 says... Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.

TRINITARIANS, can you explain the difference between a human nature being "assumed" versus being "adopted"?
Jesus is The Son of God because He is eternally BEGOTTEN of The Father.
 

jamesh

Active member
Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”


John 14:6 Jesus answered, “
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,


I certainly wouldn't say that you are Biblically literate James and I also noticed that you haven't responded to my reply to your post yet, so why haven't you?
Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”


John 14:6 Jesus answered, “
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,


I certainly wouldn't say that you are Biblically literate James and I also noticed that you haven't responded to my reply to your post yet, so why haven't you?
I have already responded to your errors but you won't accept the clear meaning of the context. Again, Luke 2:11 states Jesus "IS" the Savior, who "IS" Christ the Lord." And what is the proof that this is so? It was His resurrection from the dead according to Acts 29-36.

Romans 1:1-4 "declares" this to be so. The following is what Greek Scholar Strong and Thayer has to say regarding this issue. And btw, Thayer is a Unitarian. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3724&t=KJV

Look at what that word "declared" and follow along as to its meaning. It was already predetermined that Jesus was who He said He was and the resurrection is just one of the ways it was confirmed. Now, can you tell me from Acts 2:36 what "made" means to you and give proof that it means what you say it does? And please, try and avoid just quoting verses like you did above, "John 14:6 or 1 Timothy 2:5. Stick to the subject for a change.

IN GOD THE SON,
jamesh
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I have already responded to your errors but you won't accept the clear meaning of the context. Again, Luke 2:11 states Jesus "IS" the Savior, who "IS" Christ the Lord." And what is the proof that this is so? It was His resurrection from the dead according to Acts 29-36.

Pay attention to what you are reading:

“Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, according to Your word for my eyes have seen Your salvation."
Luke 2:29-30

And all flesh will see the salvation of God. Luke 3:6

From the seed of this man, according to promise, God has raised up to Israel a Savior, Jesus
Acts 13:23

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, and He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant Luke 1:68-69

Romans 1:1-4 "declares" this to be so. The following is what Greek Scholar Strong and Thayer has to say regarding this issue. And btw, Thayer is a Unitarian. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3724&t=KJV

Look at what that word "declared" and follow along as to its meaning. It was already predetermined that Jesus was who He said He was and the resurrection is just one of the ways it was confirmed. Now, can you tell me from Acts 2:36 what "made" means to you and give proof that it means what you say it does? And please, try and avoid just quoting verses like you did above, "John 14:6 or 1 Timothy 2:5. Stick to the subject for a change.

NO. The word horizo means to establish or fix as one would establish or fix a boundary. Horizo is the based word for the Greek wordwe translate as "predestine."

Paul says this at Romans 1:4 because.....

30 But God raised Him from the dead and for many days he appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, those who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, just as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son, Today I have BEGOTTEN You.’ 34 That He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.’ 36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; 37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.
 
Last edited:
Top