ArchivedJesuss Deity...Well Hello again adampastor!
I see that you have done your best to disprove the deity of Christ, and i too will do what i must.
John 1:10 is talking about Jesus, the Son of the Creator. The Scriptures recognized solely ONE Creator ... this ONE Creator is YAHWEH, the GOD of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob; the GOD & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Mal 2:10]; YAHWEH created all things alone! [Isa 44:24]
What the biased KJV translators did was to translate the Greek word ’dia’ as ‘by’ in v.10. They did the same thing in Col 1:16, Eph 3:9, and Heb 1:2; hence to foist their doctrine/leaven that a ‘God the Son’ made all things. However this is not what the Scriptures teach. The Greek word ’dia’ can also be translated ... ‘because of’ i.e.
(Mat 27:19) … for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
(John 7:43) So there was a division among the people because of him.
(John 12:30) Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
It can also be translated ‘for’ e.g. in Mark 2:27 you do not read that
… The sabbath was made by man, and not man by the sabbath: but rather … The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Hence you are not given the impression that somehow ‘man made the sabbath’!
And around 88 times ’dia’ is translated ‘through’.
Hence, John 1:10 need not to be translated ‘by’ but rather THROUGH! Therefore, GOD Almighty, the Father, made all things with His Son in mind ... with His Son in view. Hence the Son was in the world, and the world was made actually by GOD the Father THROUGH the Son [i.e. in view of the Son], and the world knew the Son not.
This verse is definitely NOT saying that Jesus the Messiah made all things!
The Scriptures teach no such thing. Both Christ [Mark 10:6, 13:19] and the apostles [Acts 4:24, 14:15, 17:24 cp. Matt 11:25, Luke 10:24] taught that GOD, the Father, namely YAHWEH; is the sole Creator of all things. In fact, in NO Jewish writings (I am open to be corrected) will you find any concept that the Messiah is the Creator or Maker of all things. In fact, let me quote from the Talmud that also gives the gist of what I am saying ...
1223 dia dee-ah' a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):--after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) ... fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through(-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general importance.
As you can plainly see that the Greek word dia does not exactly mean through but throughout, furthermore it can also mean by as you can clearly see in the greek interpretation.
It is better interpreted as:The world was created for Jesus, through Him, by Him.
Talmud, Sanhedrin 99 AD
You forgot to mention the interpretation of the verse in it’s entirety, making it sound as if it was the only logical explanation..
He has a body but he is NOT a body. In HIM, GOD is revealed and manifested
He has a body but He is not a body? That is clearly an oxymoron and you are only contradicting yourself with your own words.
Scripturally, solely GOD Almighty, the Father alone is YAHWEH; His name alone is YAHWEH; [Psa 83.18]; He alone goes by the sole title of ADONAI, the Supreme Lord! So it is obvious that in verses such as Mark 12:28, Acts 4:36, Matt 1:22, 2:15, 3:3; Luke 1:32, 68; 4:18; Rev 4:8, 11:15, etc; ’kurios’ is being used for YAHWEH or ADONAI.
In the Hebrew Bible (a better term for the ‘Old’ Testament), GOD is known as the ‘Adon of all the earth’ [Josh 3:11,13, Zech 6:5] and He is also called ‘Our Adon’ [Neh 10:29, Psa 8:1, 135:5, etc]
Hence you can see a continuation of this theme in the NT e.g. Matt 10:25, Luke 10:24, Rev 11:15]
Men are called ‘adon’ in the Hebrew Bible; this is also seen in the NT e.g. Abraham is called ‘kurios’. [1 Pet 3:16]
And of course, Jesus of Nazareth, who is ’lord/kurios’ of all those who believe on him, and obey his gospel, both Jew and Gentile, hence 1 Corinthians 1:2. Together, we can acknowledge that the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY has made the man Christ Jesus, Lord of all; and one day every one shall do so to the glory of the ONE GOD, the Father. [Acts 2:36, 10:36, Phil 2:11]
Also for ‘adoni, my lord’, kurio (mou) is used as in Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 22:44, Act 2:34, Luke 16:5
You have just made this argument stronger with those verses.
It is written:And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
In comparison toRevelation 1:18 - I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I am clearly states the name of God Almighty not only that, Jesus is referred to as He that liveth, which clearly states that He was always in existence and therefore can only mean that He is not a created being.
Gnosticism:1 John 2:18 - John said, "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."
And in comparison to psalm 2 where it states that THIS DAY have I begotten thee! in comparison to the last Hour, what is a day or an hour to God? Think about it.
In the Book of John (1John) where he is warning that "many antichrists have come," he is warning about Gnosticism which taught that matter is inherently evil, therefore a divine being could not take on human flesh. This view led the Gnostics to distinguish between "the man Jesus" and "the spiritual Christ." The Gnostics maintained that the spiritual Christ came upon Jesus at his baptism and left just before the crucifixion. The Gnostics took the "two-spirit" position on the incarnation. Then another sect of the Gnostics (Docetism), taught that Jesus only seemed to have a human body. Both groups held views that amounted to a flat denial of the incarnation of Jesus which, of course, is at the root of "New Age Christianity" which is also leading people to the lake of fire.
It is written: And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.John 8:23,24
To deny that God cannot take on Human flesh is not only implying that Jesus is not God but also is the Spirit of AntiChrist which the author John warned us ahead of time!
How can Jesus know all things? How about an omniscient GOD revealing ‘all things’ to him! It’s that simple. "TYPE=PICT;ALT=icon_smile.gif"
GOD showed Jesus things. He revealed things to Jesus. It was part of the job description of a prophet to ‘know things supernaturally’ (cp. the Pharisee’s comments [Luke 7:39] This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him . How did Elisha know what Gehazi had done? [2 Kings 5:25-27] GOD revealed it to him! How did Elisha know what the king of Israel said in his bedchamber? i.e. what he said in secret? [2 King 6:12] GOD revealed it to him! (See also Daniel 2:19, 22,28,47, Amos 3:7)
(Amos 3:7) Surely Adonai YAHWEH will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Therefore, here comes Jesus ‘the Prophet Par Excellence’; the one who would speak the very words of GOD Himself in a way that no previous prophet had done [Deut 18:15,18-19, John 12:49-50]; it goes without saying that via the Son’s intimate relationship with his Father, that GOD will reveal many things to His Chosen One, even the intents of men’s hearts, etc. And by the way, ‘all things’ must be taken into context; Jesus was certainly NOT omniscient. For example, he didn’t know along with the heavenly holy angels, when the day of his coming/parousia would be!
Neither did he know the times when GOD was to restore the kingdom to Israel! [Mark 13:32, Acts 1:6-7] If he had known he would have told his disciples! [(John 15:15) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.]
Jesus only knew what the Father had revealed and showed him. Hence, the scriptures clearly to NOT portray the Son as omniscient.
John 21:17 - He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
1. Peter did not say that God knows all things but that He{thou}knowest all things.
2.
Jesus most definitely does have a beginning. Matthew speaks of the ‘genesis’ of Jesus Christ. [Matt 1:1]. Neither Matthew nor Luke in their narration about how Christ came into existence, has any concept of literal pre-existence.
Now let us look at the phrase ‘from everlasting’. The Hebrew is OWLAM
(Strong’s 5769). Now note how it is translated in the following verses: (In each case the word(s) translated from OWLAM are CAPITALIZED)
1.
mighty men which were OF OLD: Gen. 6:4;
for those nations were OF OLD: 1 Sam. 27:8;
the ANCIENT people: Isa 44:7;
in the generations OF OLD: Isa 51:9;
Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far ... it is an ANCIENT nation: Jer 5:15;
the prophets ... OF OLD: Jer 28:8;
the people OF OLD TIME: Ezek 26:20;
tabernacle of David ... as in the days OF OLD: Amos 9:11;
days OF OLD: Micah 7:14, Mal. 3:4
Although OWLAM in the right context can be used to denote ‘eternity’, it is clear to see that OWLAM in the above cases cannot mean eternal/eternity i.e. eternal mighty men, eternal nations, eternal prophets, eternal people, etc.
And this goes also for Micah 5:2 which is a verse simply speaking about the coming (that is, his first coming) and birthplace of the Messiah (as used in Matt 2:5-6, John 7:42). It is simply saying that the Coming of the Messiah had been depicted and spoken of from days of old, from of old time, even from the time of Abraham, who rejoiced to see his day. [John 8:56]
The KJV English translators being biased by their trinitarian theology used the words ‘from everlasting’.
Therefore, using the same Hebrew word, Micah 5:2 could so easily be
translated: ”… yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from old time.”
Compare :-
Revised Standard Version (hereafter cited as RSV) Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
(Likewise the New Revised Standard Version has the same rendition; hereafter cited as NRS)
Young’s Literal Translation Micah 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah,
Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth—to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth {are} of old, From the days of antiquity.
New American Bible Micah 5:1 But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.
New Jerusalem Bible (hereafter cited as NJB) Micah 5:1 But you
(Bethlehem) Ephrathah, the least of the clans of Judah, from you will come for me a future ruler of Israel whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old.
That is all this verse is saying. It is Messianic. It is the verse that the
Jews in Herod’s time turned to, knowing full well that this verse was speaking about the ‘Coming and Birth of the Messiah’. The coming and origin of the Messiah was prophesied from old or ancient times, even as ancient as Adam & Eve [Gen 3:15], Abraham [Gen 22:18, Gal 3:16], Judah [Gen 49:8-10], David [2 Sam 7:12-14, 1 Chr 17:11-13, Psalms 132:11, Isaiah 11:1,10, Jere 23:5, 33:15], Daniel [9:25-26], etc. The Jews were expecting a Davidide Israelite king whose origin had been spoken of from ancient times, to be born in Bethlehem. This is what Micah 5:2 is all about. Again, you find nothing in the Jewish
writings, before and after the time of Christ (I am open to be corrected), that speak of the Messiah being an Eternal Being who would be born into the world.
You quoted:Revised Standard Version (hereafter cited as RSV) Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall co from ancient days.
(Likewise the New Revised Standard Version has the same rendition; hereafter cited as NRS)
me forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old,
From Old, ancient times, does not mecessarily Mean having a beginning, furthermore in the RSV version also states that He will come from ancient days, and those words alone prove the deity of Christ since God is referred to as ancient of days!It is written aniel 7:22 - Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom..
Hence the ‘el gibbor – mighty god’ spoken of in Isaiah 10:21 is indeed the Messiah In conclusion then, since ELOHIM is used in regards to men and judges; and since EL is used in regards to ‘power’ (e.g. Gen 31:29, Micah 2:1,etc), idols (Isaiah 44:10,15,17,etc) and mighty men including heathen kings such as Nebuchadnezzar (e.g. Ezek 31:11); EL (and ELOHIM) being used in a title for the Messiah is no proof of the so-called deity of the Messiah.
1. Quote:
… but furthermore Jesus is also called the Everlasting Father
as in God the Father, do you see the connection here my
friend?
You are kidding, right? Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying that Jesus IS the Father!!!
I assumed you were a trinitarian not a modalist neither ‘Oneness’ in your
theology!!! Guess I got that wrong as well. Beside the very obvious fact that Jesus is clearly called the ‘Son of the Father’ [2 John 3] in the Scriptures; maybe I am misunderstanding you.
I believe and know that you are.
Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The gifted child in this passage is the same divine child as Immanuel. Again using the prophetic perfect. The Prophet sees Him as though He were already born. Wonderful, Counselor{pele’yoets}is actually the one term in Hebrew. A wonder is indicative of a miracle. Counselor is often used in parallel with king{Micah 4:9} Thus miraculous counsel is given by this God-Like King. The Mighty God{El Gibor} is the strongest of these titles. In Isaiah, EL is always used of God and never refers to man.Gibor means hero. Together they describe one who is indeed God Himself. Everlasting Father{abiad} literally means Father of Eternity. He alone is the source of Eternal Life. Prince of Peace{Sar-Shalom}indicates that the mighty God will be a benevolent ruler bringing eternal peace on earth through the establishment of His kingdom. Thus the unclear figure of Immanuel is now brought to clear light:He Himself IS God incarnate!
1. It is written: But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:17-18
The author recognised Jesus as claiming to be equal with God and so did the Jews.
The author recognized no such thing!! The author narrated Jesus’ enemies’ accusations against him. The author recorded the accusation that “Jesus claimed to make himself equal to God”. You weren’t supposed to take the side of the accusers! You won’t supposed to believe the words of Jesus’ accusers!! Did Jesus ever break the sabbath? Of course not! Therefore how can one accusation be false and the other be true? NO! BOTH accusations are FALSE!
From that very moment, Jesus begins to refute the accusation that he is ‘equal with GOD’.
Did Jesus actually say, “that he was equal with GOD” NO!
His accusers said it!! Listen to the words of Jesus himself ... listen to
what HE SAID …
(John 5:19) … The Son can do nothing of himself …
(John 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing : …
Now I ask you, how can Almighty GOD do nothing OF HIMSELF?? How can ‘His Equal’ do nothing OF HIMSELF?? How can a GOD-MAN OF HIS OWN SELF do nothing??
These are not the words of ‘deity’. These are the words of a man - total
humanity. A MAN who is totally dependant upon Almighty GOD for all things ... A MAN who is totally dependant upon Almighty GOD doing the signs, wonders and miracles. As Jesus said ”the Father … He doeth the works” (John 14:10 cp. Acts 2.22 miracles and wonders and signs, which GOD did THROUGH him)
Throughout John 5:19-47, Jesus refutes any suggestion that he is somehow (co-)equal to Almighty GOD. Whose report will you believe?
The words of Christ or the words of his accusers. Think about that very slowly.
Think about it slowly? I SEE!
It is written:Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands Hebrews 2:7
If God were to take on human form as a Son to A Father , what purpose would it serve to us as sons of God if He utilized all His power in human form?
NO! The scriptures speak of the resurrection of the DEAD not the resurrection of the body!!
The same goes for Jesus of Nazareth. The scriptures speak of the resurrection of Jesus NOT the resurrection of his body.
HE was killed. HE was slain. HE died. HE was buried. HE was raised from [among] the dead by GOD Almighty. HE now possesses immortality. We ought to speak the language of scripture. Scripture speaks of the raising up of human beings not bodies. Granted ... in the First Resurrection, those who are raised from the dead will be clothed with immortality. However, it is the ‘whole man’ that dies ... therefore, it is the ‘whole man’ that shall be raised from the dead. To use technical language, the Bible speaks of humans as being ”a psychosomatic unity of body and spirit”. The same goes for Jesus of Nazareth.
It is clearly written:Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
You asked ”If the Word is God and the Word became flesh, is it not also God?” NO! Because the word ‘God’ as in the ‘word was God’ is being used adjectively. It is being used to DESCRIBE GOD’s word. (The Greek text actually reads, “god/theos was the word”)
John was a monotheistic Jew. He was not presenting ‘another being’ alongside GOD who was himself GOD! No. That is ditheism. John was no trinitarian or binitarian. He was a ONE GOD Believer.
John was simply paraphrasing what the Hebrew Bible already says about the ‘making of all things’
1.
(Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth. 3 And God said, …
(Psa 33:6) By the word of YAHWEH were the heavens
made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
(Psa 33:9) For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
(Psa 148:5) … for he commanded, and they were created.
(Amos 9:6, 5:8 ) … he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: YAHWEH is his name:
John 1:1-3 is about GOD’s [spoken] word! IT was ‘with GOD’ i.e. and IT was ‘God’ i.e. GOD’s word totally expressed GOD. GOD’s word is His Self-Expression. IT totally expresses GOD.
As a matter of fact, the majority of the English Bibles before the KJV, that
is from Tyndale’s original translation onwards (e.g. Tyndale’s Bible, the
Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc) all translated John 1:1-3 using ‘it’ not ‘him’ e.g.
Tyndale (1525.)In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it.
Tyndale New Testament (1530.)In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.
In 1537, John Rogers (using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew”) published a translation based largely on Tyndale’s, which became known s Matthew’s Bible. He used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3.
Great Bible (1539), this was a revised edition of Matthew’s Bible prepared by Miles Coverdale, uses “it” instead of “him.”
Geneva Bible (1560.)In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.
That is, Tyndale and others (although they all were no doubt trinitarians), recognized the fact, that John 1:1-3 is talking about GOD’ word, not a person, and translated John 1:1-3 as such.
A word is an ‘it’ not a him.
Sadly, trinitarian-induced bias prevailed, and from the KJV onwards, our
English bibles have ‘him’ in verse 3. However, this does not change the fact that John is speaking about GOD’s mighty word, His spoken word, through which all things have been made. In the fulness of time, GOD’s word became flesh in the person of JESUS CHRIST.
JESUS CHRIST is what the word of GOD became!
Let me sum this up with a quote from
Colin Brown wrote:
Indeed to be a “Son of God” one has to be a being who is not God! ... It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: “In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God.”
I can supply some URL links that go into more detail about these topics if
you so wish.
One of the most important titles of Christ is Logos{Word}. The notion behind this title embodied Gods revelation of Himself! To humanity. Scholars debate whether John borrowed this term from the Greeks or the Jews. If the term is Greek, there may be a numerous philisophical implications, and if it is Hebrew, it may have referred to wisdom{Proverbs 5-8} or the Law{Exodus 20}. Probably Jesus is called the Word of God because the phrase occurs over 1,200 times in the Old Testament to refer to the message of God. Jesus is the expresion and communication of the Word, He is both the incarnate and the inspired Word. Satan is twice recorded in Scripture as tempting someone. On the 1st occasion he questioned the integrity of the Word of God{Genesis 3:1-5}, On the 2nd occasion he questioned the integrity of Christ, the Word of God incarnate{Matthew 4:3,6}. If you question the validity of the scriptures then you question the integrity of Christ.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Can you kill the soul of God? If God became man and the body died, how then is God dead if His soul remains?
Classic GNOSTIC DUALISM!! Plato and Justin Martyr would be proud.To begin with, your question ... Can you kill the soul of God? If God
became man and the body died, how then is God dead if His soul remains?
GOD did not become a man so this is a non-starter anyway! Also when one dies, both BODY & SOUL dies. BODY & SOUL is MORTAL! SOULS DO NOT REMAIN!
God did become man!
If I may elaborate in detail regarding the concept of death: The scriptures never refer to death as the mere cessation of life, but instead as th unnatural separation of something from that to which it belongs. Therefore, a body without THE spirit suffers physical death{Genesis 35:18}, The expression second death defines the separation of a man from God. Human consciousness is better known as second death, suggesting that the Beast and the False Prophet will both remain ALIVE for a thousand years after being cast into the lake of fire{Revelation 19:20;20:10}.
You must have not read the verse that I wrote: John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. A human being from Heaven is that possible? you might say that He was created in Heaven, AND NO MAN HATH ASCENDED TO HEAVEN BUT HE THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN?
I indeed did read your comments on John 3:13. For starters, it could simply be the case that Jesus’ words to Nicodemus ends at verse 12; hence it is John’s words and narration from verse 13 onwards whereby he is speaking after the events of the ministry of Christ. That is, the Gospel of John like the other three, are written AFTER the events of Christ’s earthly ministry. They are narrations informing us of the words and actions of Christ, plus retrospective insights including what GOD’s spirit has revealed to these apostolic writers.
Therefore, if verse 13 are the words of John, then John is indeed saying that no man hath ever ascended to Heaven, except for the only man to have come down from Heaven, that is, Jesus, the Son of man, which is currently now (as I John writes) in Heaven.
What did John mean by the phrase ‘come down from Heaven’? What did Jesus mean when he described himself as one who had ‘come down from heaven’?
Well to ‘come down from Heaven’ is a Jewish synonymous statement which means ‘to come from GOD’ or be sent from GOD or to be commissioned/authorized by GOD.
1. The manna :-
The manna that was given in the wilderness. Did it not indeed come from GOD.
However, did the Israelites literally see it descend out of Heaven? NO! It no more came out of Heaven anymore than the quails that were rained down! [Psa 78:27]. Yet both items did indeed come from GOD! GOD Almighty provided Israel with them, hence, they came from GOD, and hence, they came from Heaven.
Likewise, Jesus denotes himself as the Bread of GOD, the Bread from Heaven [John 6:31-33]. In the same sense, that the manna and the quails didn’t literally descend from Heaven, neither did Jesus. In fact, we are told how Jesus came into this world. The scriptures say nothing of him literally descending out of Heaven. NO! Jesus came into this world like every other man who comes into this world [John 1:9] (except of course Adam) … he was born into the world. (John 16:21; John 18:37 … was I born equivalent to came I into the world)
He was conceived/begotten in the womb of Mary ... he was made of a woman. Yet, he was a man sent from GOD! [John 3:17, 3:34, 10:36; Gal 4:4, 1 John 4:9, 14, etc] A man come from GOD! (John 8:42, 13:3, 16:27-28, 3:2, etc; cp. John the Baptist, see John 1:6. John the Baptist didn’t literally descend from Heaven, did he? Yet he was a man sent from GOD)
2. The Baptism of John :-
(Mat 21:24-26) And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
(See also Mark 11:29-32, Luke 20:3-6)
The term ‘from heaven’ is obviously then a synonymous expression of something (or someone) being ‘OF GOD’ John’s baptism didn’t literally descend from heaven. NO! John’s baptism was commissioned and ordained OF GOD! Thus, when Jesus speaks of himself as being from Heaven he is stating that he is commissioned and ordained OF GOD!
3. COMING DOWN FROM GOD :-
(James 1:17) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Again, good gifts don’t literally descend from the presence of GOD. No! James is using the expression ”from above” to mean something being given or sent from GOD the Father. Hence, Jesus speaks of himself, as being ‘from above’ (John 8:23. See also John 3:31, 19:11 for other examples of the usage of this expression.); hence Jesus of Nazareth has been given (John 3:16) and sent from GOD.
We know from the recorded events in the NT, that Jesus of Nazareth did literally ascend to his GOD, to his disciples’ GOD, to his Father, to his disciples’ Father [John 20:17]; therefore John 3:13 is stating that no man has ASCENDED to Heaven, except that ONE APPOINTED MAN, the Son of Man, who came from GOD and was sent of GOD, and who is currently NOW in Heaven with Almighty GOD.
This man is the man Christ Jesus, the Son of GOD.
We await his literal descent from Heaven! [Heb 4:14, 1 Thess 1:9-10]
Now ... let’s indeed view John 3:13 as the speech of Christ himself. That is, let us take the words as Jesus’ own words, rather than a later comment by John.
What was Christ saying to Nicodemus?
Jesus spoke of himself in this passage as the Son of Man. As is well known, the title originates in Daniel 7:13 where, 550 years before the birth of Jesus, Daniel saw a vision of the Son of Man in heaven receiving authority to rule with the saints in the future Messianic Kingdom. Jesus used the title Son of Man of himself with the implication that in him was the fulfillment of the vision of Daniel ...It is the title which he specially employed, when he was foretelling to his disciples about the sufferings that were awaiting him (e.g. Mark 8:31, 9:31, Matt 26:24, Mark 9:12, 14:21, etc).
Now let us look at (John 3:14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
This verse accompanies John 3:13, that “no one except the Son of Man has ascended to heaven.”
The conjunction “and” joins John 3:13 and 14 closely. Both sayings appear to illustrate “heavenly things” which are required to happen to the Son of Man in the divine plan.
How then can Jesus have said that the Son “has ascended to heaven”? Simply because this is what had been forecast about him in Daniel.
Following a well-established principle of Hebrew thinking, God’s acts may be said to have happened already, once they are fixed in the divine counsels. The past tense “has ascended” may be explained as a past tense of something already been determined in GOD’s plan/will. Thus ”No one [it is written in the book of Daniel] is destined to ascend to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who [in Daniel’s vision of the future] is in heaven.”
Therefore, when reading John 3:13-14, special reference to Daniel’s prophecy must be taken into account.
The Son of Man is identified with the figure that in the book of Daniel is seen in heaven. He is there not because he is actually alive prior to his birth, but because God has granted Daniel, a vision of the ‘Son of Man’s’ future destiny. At the time of Jesus speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus had not yet ascended to heaven; but the ascension is so certainly prophesied by Daniel that Jesus can say he has ascended, i.e., that
he is destined to do so.
So, in conclusion, then, John 3:13 is a reference to Christ’s future ascension. If we ask where the Son of Man was before, the biblical answer is found in Daniel 7:13. The man Messiah was seen in heaven in a vision of the future which became reality at the ascension (Acts 2:33), when Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of God.
Jesus hadn’t literally descended from heaven and at the time of him talking to Nicodemus, neither had he literally ascended to heaven. Jesus was therefore, speaking in anticipation, of what GOD had ordained via the prophet Daniel, that the Son of Man would ascend to heaven to receive ‘the kingdom of GOD’.
Thus neither David [Acts 2:34] nor any other person had ascended to heaven.
Contrary to much cherished tradition; the patriarchs have not “gone to heaven.”
They are sleeping in their graves awaiting the resurrection of all the faithful [Dan. 12:2, John 5:28-29];
Jesus hadn’t literally descended from Heaven?
It is written: John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Key words: CAME OUT
Omega is right, Jesus Christ existed before Adam. You say Jesus was purely a human like us?
YES I DO!
I guess it’s because I believe the scriptures ...
(Heb 2:14-18 ) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of THE SAME; … 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Granted Jesus was without sin, however, Jesus was neither deity nor angelic.
He was flesh and blood. He was as human as Adam was ... hence he is the Last Adam.
Why else would Paul juxtapose and compare Adam with Jesus if Jesus was indeed truly not a man!! Hmm!
Very good!
Jesus was indeed man, God-man that is!
Because of their leaven/doctrine, the Gnostics went on to say that at the most, Jesus is the flesh/body, the Christ is the spirit (hence there is a distinction between the two!) ...‘the Christ’ came upon Jesus to enable him to do what he did and at his crucifixion, ‘the Christ’ left him in order for the flesh/body {Jesus} to die.
They made a distinction between the body/flesh {Jesus} and the spirit {Christ}, therefore John wrote (1 John 2:22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus IS the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
‘Believer’, just thought you should know these things and above all, acknowledge that the Lord Messiah was indeed human like us (yet without sin) and is now immortalized, at the right hand of GOD his Father.
Also concerning ‘the soul’ … read my above post to Omega, where I discuss the scriptural teaching of the mortality of ‘the soul’
If I may, the meaning of the right hand of God His father.
It is written salms 37:24 - Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
It is also written:
Matthew 20:23 - And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Whose hand? Jesus’ right Hand! The right hand of God{JESUS}
Do you see the connection here my friend?
1. Quote:
Those verses are stating the characteristics of man which God does not have because He is too Holy. It is not saying that God cannot send His only begotten Son to die for our sins. Also, those characteristics which God says He doesn’t have but man does, Christ did not have those
characteristics either. So what does that tell you?
It is not saying that God cannot send His only begotten Son to die for our sins.
Amen! In fact [Num 23:19, Job 9:32, Hosea 11:9] have nothing to with the Son!!
I most definitely believe that GOD sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins.
You are right; GOD does not have these characteristics. Therefore, GOD CANNOT even be tempted to lie or commit any other sin.
However a man can. And a man was sent to be tempted in all points.Although this man was so tempted, he DID NOT succumb to temptation and sin. This man is Jesus of Nazareth.
Although he committed no sin, indeed he had the same power of choice, as did Adam. He had the characteristics, as you put it, to do exactly as his progenitor, the man Adam, had done. However, where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. Otherwise, the temptations would be pointless. It was the spirit of GOD, which drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted. [Mark 1:12] If it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be tempted to sin, the whole episode would be pointless and meaningless.
So what does that tell me, Alpha? It tells me that Jesus is qualified without doubt, to be touched with our infirmities [Heb 4:15, 2:18]; it tells me that Jesus is truly worthy to be exalted by GOD to be Lord of all.
It tells me that he is my brother as well as my Lord. It tells me that he is worthy. It tells me that he is the Holy One of GOD.
And above all, it tells me, that to teach that Jesus is somehow GOD or a ‘god-man’ demeans and lessens what Christ actually did and went through for us ... this I will not do! That is what it tells me!
1. Quote:
Those verses are stating the characteristics of man which God does not have because He is too Holy. It is not saying that God cannot send His only begotten Son to die for our sins. Also, those characteristics which God says He doesn’t have but man does, Christ did not have those
characteristics either. So what does that tell you?
It is not saying that God cannot send His only begotten Son to die for our sins.
Amen! In fact [Num 23:19, Job 9:32, Hosea 11:9] have nothing to with the Son!!
I most definitely believe that GOD sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins.
You are right; GOD does not have these characteristics. Therefore, GOD CANNOT even be tempted to lie or commit any other sin.
However a man can. And a man was sent to be tempted in all points.Although this man was so tempted, he DID NOT succumb to temptation and sin. This man is Jesus of Nazareth.
Although he committed no sin, indeed he had the same power of choice, as did Adam. He had the characteristics, as you put it, to do exactly as his progenitor, the man Adam, had done. However, where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. Otherwise, the temptations would be pointless. It was the spirit of GOD, which drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted. [Mark 1:12] If it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be tempted to sin, the whole episode would be pointless and meaningless.
So what does that tell me, Alpha? It tells me that Jesus is qualified without doubt, to be touched with our infirmities [Heb 4:15, 2:18]; it tells me that Jesus is truly worthy to be exalted by GOD to be Lord of all.
It tells me that he is my brother as well as my Lord. It tells me that he is worthy. It tells me that he is the Holy One of GOD.
And above all, it tells me, that to teach that Jesus is somehow GOD or a ‘god-man’ demeans and lessens what Christ actually did and went through for us ... this I will not do!
That is what it tells me!
You have just clarifired the True meaning behind the temptation of Christ, was Christ tempted?
Satan was tempting Jesus, but was Jesus really tempted? Does it say in the verses that He showed temptation? A better word to describe this is to be tested.
It is written:
Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 4:1
Now where in those verses does it state that Jesus was actually tempted?
The temptation from Satan to Jesus was a lesson to be learned to all the sons or children of God as human beings, but that does not mean that He{JESUS}Himself was actually tempted but as a demonstration on how we as sons or children of God should live and obey.
Quote salms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. So when was Jesus begotten? the answer to this question is dependant on the word “DAY” God transcends time and lives beyond time, He cannot be limited to a 24-hour day. So this word means an eternal day.
That statement is as contradictory as Origen’s phrase ”eternally begotten”
Psalms 2:7 does not say, “In a day have I begotten thee” but rather THIS DAY! Surely you must see that this is speaking of a specific 24-hour day or at least a specific time ... you can’t turn the expression ‘this day’ into an eternal day! This makes nonsense of language, whether English, Hebrew or Greek.
Anyway, no need to despair ... the Apostle Paul clarifies this totally ... turn your bible to (Acts 13:21-33) And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. 22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23 Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: …32 And we declare unto you glad tidings,how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
GOD fulfilled his promises by raising up a Saviour, Jesus of Nazareth. Note how the expression ‘raised up’ is used in Scripture – please note: Acts 13:33 is nothing to do with the resurrection. That is dealt with in verse 34 onwards. Please ignore the word ‘again’ in verse 33 – it is not in the Greek text. Verse 33 simply reads God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
F.F. Bruce wrote:
The promise of Acts 13:23, the fulfillment of which is here described [Acts 13:33] has to do with the sending of the Messiah, not his resurrection, for which see v. 34.
The KJV translators added the word ‘again’ to Acts 13:33 giving the false impression that this verse is speaking about the resurrection of Christ, when indeed, it is actually speaking about the event of the birth of Christ being the fulfillment of GOD’s promises!
Acts 13:33 when left alone clearly states that the Son was ‘begotten’ and that there was a time when he was begotten; hence the Son had a beginning. This of course, goes against the trinitarian doctrine of ’an eternally begotten Son, who is the 2nd person of the trinity’ hence the need for some manipulation on the translators’ part. Now, when a translator would ‘add a word’ which is not in the original Greek, they would place it in italics. However, they would not do this consistently i.e. the word AGAIN does not appear in the original Greek of Acts 13.33-37! Its Greek word palin (Strong’s 3825) is simply not there!
Hence what I am saying is this: To sway the reader from the obvious
implications of Acts 13:33, that the Son had a beginning i.e. he was begotten in time on a certain day; the translators added the word AGAIN, therefore causing the reader to read ‘the resurrection’ into the verse.
Now look again at Acts 13:33 without using the word ‘again’, and hopefully you will see that Acts 13:33 is not speaking about the resurrection at all!
If I may again attempt to clarify the word begotten and its usage within those verses: On several occasions during His ministry on earth, the sonship of Christ was particularly emphasized in the incarnation{Luke 1:35}, in baptism{Matthew 3:17}, and in the resurrection{Romans 1:4}. These events did not make Christ the Son of God, but only proved that He already was!.
And if you would like scriptural proof concerning the deity of the Holy Ghost
No thanks. That’s a non-starter.
GOD is spirit ... GOD is holy.
The holy spirit is simply the spirit of GOD. ’ITS’ not a person or a being alongside GOD the Father. ‘IT’ is the spirit of GOD.
Then you yourself had said it regarding the deity of the Holy Ghost and its adjunction with God.
OK! OK! Let me concede for a few moments to the above statement. Then are you not agreeing that Christ was indeed dead and it took power from another source other than himself in order for Christ to be raised from the dead?
Therefore Christ did NOT raise himself!!
Hmmm.
Yes indeed, it is written:John 5:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
That my friend is where you fail to realize the Godhead connection between the Spirit and Son and its unity and how they compliment each other.
In conclusion:
I can see that you have put much effort to disprove the Deity of Christ.
With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible, even God becoming man. I pray that one day the Lord Jesus Christ will not only open your mind but your heart also. We are living in the last days{Once again what is a day to God?}as in the book of Psalms 2, The Enemy is at work because His time is almost up. Those who seek the absolute Truth if sought with all their heart will come to a conclusion and that conclusion is" JESUS IS GOD!"
God Bless!
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |