The "Jesus" we accept, MUST be "PREACHED".

[Dartman]

Look, here's the problem:

The Bible is an anthology of VERY heterogeneous texts, but all the younger ones have been written with a specific spin on the older ones, imbuing them with new, originally unintended meaning.

Take Genesis, for example. Clearly a polytheistic myth originally, where El and his sons (the Elohim, or gods) are in charge.

Judaism moved from heno- to monotheism, conflated El with YHVH, and got rid of all the others - so "Elohim" was re-interpreted as a majestic plural, the "sons of El" became angels, and when El addresses the other gods after throwing Adam and Eve out of Eden, he's just talking to himself.

Christians, in turn, sometimes re-imagine that "monologue" as a conversation between the separate parts of the trinity, with the Father adressing the Son and the Spirit.

It's all a sleight-of-hand, a moving of goalpost, a retcon.
All the Abrahamics do it. Just think of muslims trying to substantiate that the New Testaments contains prophecies pointing to Muhammad, or retconning Ishmael into the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham.

You may not have written "50 Shades of Grey", but this statement is pure fiction. There is nothing in Genesis indicating any polytheism regarding Jehovah/YHVH. Other than the plurality of the TITLE "Elohiym". And that is elementary Bible Student material, it merely denotes majesty. Your attempt to overlook the consistency in all 66 books is either bluster, or you are poorly informed.

That being said, when it comes to the doctrines of apostate "Christianity", you are fairly close, IF you would have mentioned Pagan philosophy as the most recent, and polluting influences on their hermeneutics. For example, one of the most influential of the "Church Fathers", Justin Martyr, was a devout follower of Pagan philosophy, and is credited with claiming many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), in whose works he was well studied, as unknowing Christians.
Justin Martyr - Wikipedia

However, when you leave out the apostasy's heretical teachings of immaterial beings, man's "immortal spirit" and the trinity, and just look at the actual writings of Scripture, there is marvelous harmony within EVERY book.

 

[Dartman]

You are side-tracking the argument. You never face the argument saying that the Jews chose to stone Jesus and why?

Of course I have. Perhaps not in direct reply to your posts, but I have repeatedly pointed out, the Jews were wrong.

Or, do YOU think they were right? Do you think Jesus deserved to die?? DO you EVER see Jesus saying: Hey, you guys are right?

 

[Hawkins]

Of course I have. Perhaps not in direct reply to your posts, but I have repeatedly pointed out, the Jews were wrong.

Or, do YOU think they were right? Do you think Jesus deserved to die?? DO you EVER see Jesus saying: Hey, you guys are right?

How wrong they are. You mean that you have a better understanding about what Jesus said then the Jews on the scene. You mean that the Jews shouldn't have been offended because they misinterpreted what Jesus said?

Please answer this more directly;

Why the Jews were angry and chose to stone Jesus?

 

[Dartman]

How wrong they are. You mean that you have a better understanding about what Jesus said then the Jews on the scene.

They rejected Jesus, I don't. Who do YOU think has a better understanding of Jesus?

You mean that the Jews shouldn't have been offended because they misinterpreted what Jesus said?

Exactly. Which is PRECISELY why Jesus corrected them, rather than just saying, "Hey, you're right."

Please answer this more directly;

Why the Jews were angry and chose to stone Jesus?

Which time????
In Nazareth, when they tried to throw him off a cliff?
Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
Luke 4:28-29 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

Luke 13:34-35 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! 35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Or, in John 10, AFTER Jesus corrected their accusation, saying

John 10:34-39 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, "I said, Ye are gods"? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

Notice, in NONE of these events, (and there are others), did Jesus claim to be God!! In ALL of them, he says he is a prophet, or the son of God, that he is SENT BY God/my Father.

You have sided with the Jews, in their distorted, erroneous assumptions.

 

[gadar perets]

You are side-tracking the argument. You never face the argument saying that the Jews chose to stone Jesus and why?

Why did the Jews seek to stone him in John 8:59? The context of John 8 shows that Yeshua;

1) accused the Jews of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing YHWH (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).
​

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yeshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yeshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).​

Yeshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally. If they tried to stone him in verse 59 because he said "ego eimi" or "I am", then why didn't they stone the blind man who was healed and said "ego eimi" or "I am" only a short time later? John 9:9 reads;

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν· ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
​

The word "he" is not in the Greek. He simply said, "I am."

​

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

There is nothing in Genesis indicating any polytheism regarding Jehovah/YHVH. Other than the plurality of the TITLE "Elohiym".

And the sons of El, and El addressing the sons of El.
The plurale majestatis-interpretation is a case of retroactive continuity, and even this cannot get rid of passages where the sons of El are specifically mentioned. These, too, were retconned as angels, naturally, but that does not truly obfuscate the source of these texts. They are steeped in proto-semitic polytheism.

 

[Dartman]

And the sons of El, and El addressing the sons of El.
The plurale majestatis-interpretation is a case of retroactive continuity, and even this cannot get rid of passages where the sons of El are specifically mentioned. These, too, were retconned as angels, naturally, but that does not truly obfuscate the source of these texts. They are steeped in proto-semitic polytheism.

No, the arguments for Polytheism are steeped in skepticism. They are a feeble attempt to explain away a miraculously contiguous set of writings, which have demolished the skeptic's criticisms regarding historical and archaeological "impossibilities" time after time.
It is obvious from your sad defense, you already know the error of the skeptic's position, and are merely fulfilling 2 Peter 3:3-7

 

[danny ski]

How wrong they are. You mean that you have a better understanding about what Jesus said then the Jews on the scene. You mean that the Jews shouldn't have been offended because they misinterpreted what Jesus said?

Please answer this more directly;

Why the Jews were angry and chose to stone Jesus?

This is an argument about pure speculation, in any case. As no first hand accounts of the supposed conversations exist. The premise in Matthew that the learned men would have been stumped by what we now know as Psalm 110 is hard to swallow, to say the least.

 

[Dartman]

This is an argument about pure speculation, in any case. As no first hand accounts of the supposed conversations exist.

Your assumptions reveal your bias.

The premise in Matthew that the learned men would have been stumped by what we now know as Psalm 110 is hard to swallow, to say the least.

They knew the Psalm, they were stymied by the implications of the fulfillment, since it contradicted their traditions.

 

[danny ski]

Your assumptions reveal your bias.

They knew the Psalm, they were stymied by the implications of the fulfillment, since it contradicted their traditions.

How am I biased? Are you saying that there are transcripts of the actual conversations? That's quite a revelation. As for them being stymied, the conversation in question makes a perfect sense... if it was conducted in English or Greek. In Hebrew or Aramaic, not so much. I'm pretty sure that they knew the difference between Adonai and adoni and how to read their own scripture. Don't know about other exchanges, but this one never happened.

 

[gadar perets]

How am I biased? Are you saying that there are transcripts of the actual conversations? That's quite a revelation.

If you are going to bring into question the validity of the Greek copies, then you should do the same for the Hebrew copies. We do not have David's original text of Psalm 110. We just trust it was copied faithfully.

As for them being stymied, the conversation in question makes a perfect sense... if it was conducted in English or Greek. In Hebrew or Aramaic, not so much. I'm pretty sure that they knew the difference between Adonai and adoni and how to read their own scripture. Don't know about other exchanges, but this one never happened.

The issue, based on the Greek text, is not whether or not the Jews understood the difference between Adonai and adoni. I am sure Yeshua used "adoni" when he spoke to the Jews in Matthew 22:41-46. The Greek copies use κυρίῳ μου which is exactly as it appears in the Septuagint. What matters is how the Hebrew renders Psalm 110:1. It is not doubt "adoni" meaning "my lord."

Yeshua knew the Jews believed Messiah was the son of David and they admitted as much.
Yeshua also knew they did not know how Messiah was David's son and David's lord which is why he asked the question in verse 45. He seized the opportunity to teach them the true interpretation of Psalm 110:1 as referring to Messiah, not David or anyone else. The modern Jewish interpretation that "my lord" refers to David is false. If you are going to argue Matthew 22:41-46 is based on speculation because we can't trust the Greek copies, then we can't trust the Hebrew copies either. We might as well throw out the entire Bible since it is all based on copies.

Do not let the false Christian and Jewish interpretations sway you from understanding the truth of Psalm 110:1. Accept that Yeshua's words were handed down correctly and that "my lord" refers to David's lord, Messiah.

 

[Robban]

If you are going to bring into question the validity of the Greek copies, then you should do the same for the Hebrew copies. We do not have David's original text of Psalm 110. We just trust it was copied faithfully.


The issue, based on the Greek text, is not whether or not the Jews understood the difference between Adonai and adoni. I am sure Yeshua used "adoni" when he spoke to the Jews in Matthew 22:41-46. The Greek copies use κυρίῳ μου which is exactly as it appears in the Septuagint. What matters is how the Hebrew renders Psalm 110:1. It is not doubt "adoni" meaning "my lord."

Yeshua knew the Jews believed Messiah was the son of David and they admitted as much.
Yeshua also knew they did not know how Messiah was David's son and David's lord which is why he asked the question in verse 45. He seized the opportunity to teach them the true interpretation of Psalm 110:1 as referring to Messiah, not David or anyone else. The modern Jewish interpretation that "my lord" refers to David is false. If you are going to argue Matthew 22:41-46 is based on speculation because we can't trust the Greek copies, then we can't trust the Hebrew copies either. We might as well throw out the entire Bible since it is all based on copies.

Do not let the false Christian and Jewish interpretations sway you from understanding the truth of Psalm 110:1. Accept that Yeshua's words were handed down correctly and that "my lord" refers to David's lord, Messiah.

The entire Plalms 110 refers to Abraham who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.

 

[JoeP222w]

I started a previous thread, at the request of another member, to discuss the 'trinity'. In that thread I challenged anyone, to produce even ONE example of ANY teacher in the Bible explaining the trinity to an audience.

No surprise.

Not one text.

In stead, MOST of the replies were of this nature;

Without debating the obvious weaknesses of this statement, I offer this as an example of the dubious, peripheral tangents resorted to, in the attempt to show SOME Scripture that MIGHT offer "support" for trinitarian theory.
I will admit, there are MUCH better texts that 'trinitarian' supporters can produce, but NOT ONE meets Paul's criteria in 2 Cor 11:3-4 ... the "Jesus" we accept MUST be the "Jesus" actually PREACHED by the apostles.

Recommended reading: "The Forgotten Trinity" by James R. White.

 

[JoeP222w]

IN the trinity all 3 "Beings/persons" are God but not each other essentially that's at least how it seems

And you have demonstrated one of the fundamental errors of those who oppose the Trinity. Being is not the same as person. A rock has a "being" but a rock is not a "person".

The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that there are 3 "Beings" of God (nor 3 Gods). The Trinity is 3 Persons in 1 Being.

 

[JoeP222w]

Fortunetly whether one is a trinitarian or not is not a salvation critical issue.

Actually it is. If one denies the Trinity, they do not know God. If one does not know God, they do not have eternal life.

 

[JoeP222w]

I just don't see a core difference between father, son, Holy Spirit to cause them to be 3 separate beings.

They are not 3 separate beings, and the Trinity doctrine does not teach that they are 3 separate beings.

 

[gadar perets]

The entire Plalms 110 refers to Abraham who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.

Jews put forth all sorts of interpretations all with the intent of avoiding the truth that it refers to Messiah. Jews for Judaism say it refers to David as does Tovia Singer. Others say it refers to Hezekiah. You say Abraham. All false interpretations since Yeshua said it refers to Messiah.

 

[JoeP222w]

Where do you find any Scripture that states the "spirit would know the mind of God"?

1 Corinthians 2:9-11 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"— (10) these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. (11) For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Jehovah/YHVH God, the ONLY true God.

The Trinity does not deny this.

 

[gadar perets]

Actually it is. If one denies the Trinity, they do not know God. If one does not know God, they do not have eternal life.

Others would say if one believes the trinity, they do not know God.

 

[JoeP222w]

Others would say if one believes the trinity, they do not know God.

Understood and they would be wrong. Not because I say so, but because the Bible says so.