Why does the OT say that

[Rangerainy]

Although we believe that Jesus is fully man, fully divine "god", and these two are inseparable, I found in the OT says something different.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" Numbers 23:19

It is also obvious that the OT fit the history and reality best as it was written at the time of Jesus, not like the NT which was written hundreds of years later.

What do you think?

 

[Faulty]

Although we believe that Jesus is fully man, fully divine "god", and these two are inseparable, I found in the OT says something different.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" Numbers 23:19

It is also obvious that the OT fit the history and reality best as it was written at the time of Jesus, not like the NT which was written hundreds of years later.

What do you think?

You didn't find anything different in the OT. This is affirmation of God's nature, being compared to man in that He isn't incapable if lying, and He does what He intends to do, which is the rest of the verse you cut off.

NT also speaks of this, sending the Son in the "likeness" of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), tempted in every way as we are, but without sin (Heb 4:15), and by nature is unable to sin (Titus 1:2).

They aren't two things at all, and the more you learn the scriptures, the more clear that becomes.

 

[Rangerainy]

You didn't find anything different in the OT. This is affirmation of God's nature, being compared to man in that He isn't incapable if lying, and He does what He intends to do, which is the rest of the verse you cut off.

NT also speaks of this, sending the Son in the "likeness" of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), tempted in every way as we are, but without sin (Heb 4:15), and by nature is unable to sin (Titus 1:2).

They aren't two things at all, and the more you learn the scriptures, the more clear that becomes.

God is not a man, that He should lie VS Jesus (God) is fully man ....

GOD is not a man <> Jesus is a man + Divine spirit ????

These two phrases are completely opposite to each other

My friend was right, he is an atheist BTW.
He said they will tell you to put it in the text, and then they will start lying to themselves and you, explaining it in the way they want.

 

[aiki]

Although we believe that Jesus is fully man, fully divine "god", and these two are inseparable, I found in the OT says something different.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" Numbers 23:19

It is also obvious that the OT fit the history and reality best as it was written at the time of Jesus, not like the NT which was written hundreds of years later.

What do you think?

I'd be willing to answer this question but for your unwillingness to accept an answer:

My friend was right, he is an atheist BTW.
He said they will tell you to put it in the text, and then they will start lying to themselves and you, explaining it in the way they want.

This comment pretty much limits any respondent to agreeing with you or being guilty of manipulating the text. Why is any answer but your own just "lying to themselves" and "explaining it any way they want"? Why can't your view be charged with the same things?

Selah.

 

[drich0150]

Although we believe that Jesus is fully man, fully divine "god", and these two are inseparable, I found in the OT says something different.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" Numbers 23:19

The word Man in the Hebrew:
&#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;
is not limited to the single expression of the word you or "your friend" is using in English. This is made evident by the context following the word.

It is also obvious that the OT fit the history and reality best as it was written at the time of Jesus,

Actually the passage you are referring to was written during the time of Moses, about 1400 years prior to Christ, and yet Every Jew of that day still looked for the coming Messiah. This means your understanding of the passage is far different than that of the OT Jew.

 

[Rangerainy]

The word Man in the Hebrew:
&#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;
is not limited to the single expression of the word you or "your friend" is using in English. This is made evident by the context following the word.

Actually the passage you are referring to was written during the time of Moses, about 1400 years prior to Christ, and yet Every Jew of that day still looked for the coming Messiah. This means your understanding of the passage is far different than that of the OT Jew.

Hi, drich0150

You seem confused, please give me your explanation. You seem to have read the scripture in Hebrew.

 

[hedrick]

Although we believe that Jesus is fully man, fully divine "god", and these two are inseparable, I found in the OT says something different.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" Numbers 23:19

It is also obvious that the OT fit the history and reality best as it was written at the time of Jesus, not like the NT which was written hundreds of years later.

What do you think?

The Bible, for better or worse, uses words differently than modern Christians. It almost always uses the term "God" for the eternal, immortal God. Even the most explicit parts of the NT are reluctant to use the term "God" for Jesus directly. Col speaks of Jesus has having the fullness of God dwelling in him. But Paul generally speaks of God as the Father of Christ, distinguishing between God and Christ. The NT uses God of Jesus in at most a couple of places, and even there it's oblique. (The clearest is probably John 20:28.)

Hence the OT statements that God is different than man are completely consistent with the way the NT uses "God."

Christians call Jesus God. This is largely non-Biblical terminology. I'm more comfortable saying that Jesus is the incarnation of God, i.e. God's way of appearing as a human. However Christians think that this human is so completely united to God that we need to think of them as one thing. There is some Biblical basis for that. But the Bible doesn't use God to refer to Christ in his humanity. The passage you quote is quite typical of Biblical language about God, even in the NT and Paul.

By the way, I'm not sure where you get the impression that the NT was written centuries after Jesus. Even skeptical scholars generally concede that Paul was the author of at least many of the letters in the NT, and that some of then were written 30-40 years after Jesus' death. It's also quite common to believe that Mark was written around 64 AD, and all or almost all of the NT would have been finished before 100. When I was in college in the 1960's it was common to hear that parts of the NT were written in the 2nd Cent (although even that isn't "hundreds of years" later). But when an actual manuscript containing part of John was dated to the early 100s, that kind of shook people up. After all, it's unlikely that what they found was the original .And John is believed to be the last of the Gospels. Similarly, as scholars started learning more of 1st Cent Judaism (partly due to the Dead Sea scrolls and other finds), it started looking like the NT documents were consistent with 1st Cent Judaism. So the dates largely moved back into the 1st Cent.

I have no idea why any Christian would consider the OT more reliable than the NT about Jesus. Yes, the prophets had hopes for the future which Jesus fulfilled. But he fulfilled them in ways that weren't foreseen beforehand. You really need to look at the NT if you want to understand Jesus.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Hi, drich0150

You seem confused, please give me your explanation. You seem to have read the scripture in Hebrew.

Why are you thinking he seems confused?

 

[Rangerainy]

The Bible, for better or worse, uses words differently than modern Christians. It almost always uses the term "God" for the eternal, immortal God. Even the most explicit parts of the NT are reluctant to use the term "God" for Jesus directly. Col speaks of Jesus has having the fullness of God dwelling in him. But Paul generally speaks of God as the Father of Christ, distinguishing between God and Christ. The NT uses God of Jesus in at most a couple of places, and even there it's oblique. (The clearest is probably John 20:28.)

Hence the OT statements that God is different than man are completely consistent with the way the NT uses "God."

Christians call Jesus God. This is largely non-Biblical terminology. I'm more comfortable saying that Jesus is the incarnation of God, i.e. God's way of appearing as a human. However Christians think that this human is so completely united to God that we need to think of them as one thing. There is some Biblical basis for that. But the Bible doesn't use God to refer to Christ in his humanity. The passage you quote is quite typical of Biblical language about God, even in the NT and Paul.

By the way, I'm not sure where you get the impression that the NT was written centuries after Jesus. Even skeptical scholars generally concede that Paul was the author of at least many of the letters in the NT, and that some of then were written 30-40 years after Jesus' death. It's also quite common to believe that Mark was written around 64 AD, and all or almost all of the NT would have been finished before 100. When I was in college in the 1960's it was common to hear that parts of the NT were written in the 2nd Cent (although even that isn't "hundreds of years" later). But when an actual manuscript containing part of John was dated to the early 100s, that kind of shook people up. After all, it's unlikely that what they found was the original .And John is believed to be the last of the Gospels. Similarly, as scholars started learning more of 1st Cent Judaism (partly due to the Dead Sea scrolls and other finds), it started looking like the NT documents were consistent with 1st Cent Judaism. So the dates largely moved back into the 1st Cent.

I have no idea why any Christian would consider the OT more reliable than the NT about Jesus. Yes, the prophets had hopes for the future which Jesus fulfilled. But he fulfilled them in ways that weren't foreseen beforehand. You really need to look at the NT if you want to understand Jesus.

Thanks for the post.

I would say the same thing i have said to ViaCrucis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._BrownSo Jesus who walked on earth, ate and drank, was NOT a God ? And there is another Form, the divine which is God ?

But they are inseparable.

SO when people see him, he is NOT a God, and when they don't he is a God.

You are lying to me and to yourself.

 

[SolomonVII]

Thanks for the post.

I would say the same thing i have said to ViaCrucis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._BrownSo Jesus who walked on earth, ate and drank, was NOT a God ? And there is another Form, the divine which is God ?

But they are inseparable.

SO when people see him, he is NOT a God, and when they don't he is a God.

You are lying to me and to yourself.

If you think it is a lie for people who speak of the the Second Person of the Trinity as fully man and fully God, then you yourself are bearing false witness about your faith being Christian.
For all of credal Christianity affirms this very fact.

Even your verse from numbers is quite clear as to what the difference between God and man is, and that is sin, in the form of deception, and anything else that needs to be repented from, and keeps us from becoming Holy with God.
The only thing that keeps man from God is sin, and the sinless Son of Man redeemed all of mankind through his sinlessness, and through his infinite forgiveness of our sins against him.
This is the good news of the Gospels. The proper sin offering of atonement has been made for us by the Innocent One, who alone is the proper sacrifice for the utter defeat of sin. We have been redeemed and are the Body of Christ even, becoming resurrected body and soul in a perfect union with God himself

 

[aiki]

I would say the same thing i have said to ViaCrucis

So Jesus who walked on earth, ate and drank, was NOT a God ? And there is another Form, the divine which is God ?

But they are inseparable.

SO when people see him, he is NOT a God, and when they don't he is a God.

You are lying to me and to yourself.

The OP has made it clear that he is not interested in learning, but in arguing. Very early in this thread he asserted that any view but his own is just a lie or a manipulation of the biblical text. Given this attitude in the OPer, I can't see how any of you who have responded are going to accomplish anything useful. As you can all see, he has been consistent with his earlier post in charging Hedrick with lying.

Selah.

 

[Rangerainy]

The OP has made it clear that he is not interested in learning, but in arguing. Very early in this thread he asserted that any view but his own is just a lie or a manipulation of the biblical text. Given this attitude in the OPer, I can't see how any of you who have responded are going to accomplish anything useful. As you can all see, he has been consistent with his earlier post in charging Hedrick with lying.

Selah.

You can't tell me THE EARTH IS CUBE. Then you start to explain and you expect me to listen to you.

You can tell me the earth is NOT spherical. Then you can start explaining and i would be interested to listen.

I hope you have a brain to comprehend what i said.

 

[aiki]

You can't tell me THE EARTH IS CUBE. Then you start to explain and you expect me to listen to you.

No one on this thread has done anything like this.

You can tell me the earth is NOT spherical. Then you can start explaining and i would be interested to listen.

This is just semantics. Saying, "The earth is a cube," is to say, "The earth is not spherical." Why make a distinction between these two comments when they are essentially the same?

I hope you have a brain to comprehend what i said.

Selah.

 

[drich0150]

Hi, drich0150

You seem confused, please give me your explanation. You seem to have read the scripture in Hebrew.

I did not know that I was confused until you told me that I was. So perhaps you could explain where my confusion lies and I will try and help you alleviate my confusion.

Otherwise know my explanation stands according to how it was originally presented.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for the post.

I would say the same thing i have said to ViaCrucis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._BrownSo Jesus who walked on earth, ate and drank, was NOT a God ? And there is another Form, the divine which is God ?

But they are inseparable.

SO when people see him, he is NOT a God, and when they don't he is a God.

You are lying to me and to yourself.

[There's only one God, so the phrase "a God" is dangerous.]

Basically the Christian claim is that there is only one God, who has existed from eternity as an immortal, invisible entity. However in order to redeem us he joined us through a human life.

It's not that there's a divine that is God and a divine that is not God. Since divine in this context means God, that doesn't seem very meaningful. I would say almost the reverse, that the same God has two forms, one that is immortal and invisible and one that it human.

The problem is that there are two ways to look at Jesus, both of which are true. He was a human being, but because God was present through this particular human life, he was also God's presence. (I'm trying to avoid the language of the creeds, since it requires a lot of explanation, but I'm trying to say what Chalcedon said.)

As such he's like a book. If you look at a book as a material object you see paper. But if you look at its meaning you say a story. If you look at Jesus in a material way you see a human. If you look at the whole picture you see God.

This is an unusual enough concept that we don't have good words for it. Christians have chosen to use the term God to refer to Jesus, because ultimately when we see him we see God. For that to make sense, however, you need a fair amount of explanation.

However Scripture chooses to use the term "God" for the immortal invisible being, in almost all contexts, and to speak of God being fully present in Jesus, rather than directly speaking of Jesus as God. I believe the underlying reality is the same.

 

[Rangerainy]

I would say almost the reverse, that the same God has two forms, one that is immortal and invisible and one that it human.

Numbers 23:19 ,,, "God is NOT a man"

I can't even begin to believe that the GOD i was worshiping was a weak human being at some stage!

There is no wonder that 40% of Europe have become atheists because of such sick explanations FOR many many GENUINE CONTRADICTIONS that are there even if you deny that.

PLease look at your POST, you wrote half a page to explain few words.

The problem is that there are two ways to look at Jesus, both of which are true. He was a human being, but because God was present through this particular human life, he was also God's presence. (I'm trying to avoid the language of the creeds, since it requires a lot of explanation, but I'm trying to say what Chalcedon said.)

As such he's like a book. If you look at a book as a material object you see paper. But if you look at its meaning you say a story. If you look at Jesus in a material way you see a human. If you look at the whole picture you see God.

This is an unusual enough concept that we don't have good words for it. Christians have chosen to use the term God to refer to Jesus, because ultimately when we see him we see God. For that to make sense, however, you need a fair amount of explanation.

However Scripture chooses to use the term "God" for the immortal invisible being, in almost all contexts, and to speak of God being fully present in Jesus, rather than directly speaking of Jesus as God. I believe the underlying reality is the same.

Everything you talk about:

There are two ways OR there are many explanations !!!
Some believe SO AND other believe SO !

we don't have good words for it.
It is just your PATHETIC sick imagination. Even your small brain has stopped working from the many LIES and LIES and LIES.

BE A MAN AND SAY IT ,, I CAN'T LIE ANYMORE.

I DON'T THINK I WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CHRISTIAN ,, I DON'T WANT A RELIGION BASED ON LIES. I will be anything BUT a Christian.

GOD bless you Michael, although he is an atheist but he is an honest descent man.

 

[hedrick]

Numbers 23:19 ,,, "God is NOT a man"

I can't even begin to believe that the GOD i was worshiping was a weak human being at some stage!

Then I think you don't belong as a Christian.

 

[aiki]

Everything you talk about:

There are two ways OR there are many explanations !!!
Some believe SO AND other believe SO !

You haven't given any good reason for your view. You've simply stated it and expected it to be self-evidently true. It hasn't occurred to you that your understanding is based on highly simplistic reasoning and a profoundly ignorant grasp of the full breadth of the Scripture's teaching on the matter.

we don't have good words for it.
It is just your PATHETIC sick imagination. Even your small brain has stopped working from the many LIES and LIES and LIES.

Well, I hate to say it to you folks, but, I told you so. The OPer came to this site so fully expecting lies that he sees them even when they aren't there.

BE A MAN AND SAY IT ,, I CAN'T LIE ANYMORE.

I DON'T THINK I WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CHRISTIAN ,, I DON'T WANT A RELIGION BASED ON LIES. I will be anything BUT a Christian.

Ah, and now we see the real reason for the Oper's "questions."

 

[Rangerainy]

I would say almost the reverse, that the same God has two forms, one that is immortal and invisible and one that it human.

Then I think you don't belong as a Christian.

Look at these and you will know why people call you lairs

Exodus 30

19And He said, "I will make all My goodness pass before thee; and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."
20And He said, "Thou canst not see My face, for there shall no man see Me and live."

21And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock.

22And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand while I pass by;


MAYBE they meant by this FACE is the first form NOT the other !!!!!!!!


THE FUNNY THING IS THAT WHENEVER YOU COME UP WITH A LIE YOU CONTRADICT THE BIBLE SO


You need to come up with another one, and .............

 

[hedrick]

In Moses' time Jesus hadn't been born yet. God didn't have a human face yet.