Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Jesus claims here to be God . However various verses which I have shown earlier speak some other story. It shows how corrupted bible is . For instance Peter declared: “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus...” (Acts 5:29-30).
So we agree that Jesus claimed to be God. That should end the discussion.

Contradicts . God cannot be tempted. James 1:13 Yet Jesus was tempted
As he was dying, Jesus asked God why he had foresaken him. you imply God forsakes himself? Mark 15:34

> Father which hath sent me draw him
and this kind of objection, which is common among non-Christians, arises solely from their unfamiliarity with the Trinitarian nature of God (and the Incarnation), even if they have read or heard about it and know the generalities of the concept. No difficulty exists for Christians when such passages are cited by members of other faiths.

This verse is itself disputed for the word could not have existed in the beginning without the speaker
which is nothing more than a case of the reader not knowing what is meant by "word."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,265
US
✟1,474,808.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The only thing the Holy Spirit told Cornelius was to summon Peter. There is no doubt that Peter preached the Gospel to him and his household.

Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit had already arranged the meeting dealing with both of them--and Cornelius didn't even have to be told three times as Peter was--then Cornelius had clearly already been "enabled by the Father"


A lot can be taught in an hour.

Actually, Acts records the entire quote of what Peter had said to Cornelius before the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter with Cornelius speaking in tongues.

My point is: When someone has been enabled by the Father, it doesn't take much. The gospel is very slim.

What you call "characteristics unique to God" are probably not unique or, if they are unique, Yeshua did not have those characteristics.

What are you saying here? Are you saying that Jesus is not God?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,265
US
✟1,474,808.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My friend the troubling is the Gospel of Mark makes no mention of any virgin birth. Paul's Epistles and Romans were written a decade or more before Mark also makes no mention of this.

But Luke does, and Paul was well-acquainted with Luke, to say the least. Paul otherwise has no need in his instructions to the congregations to delineate Jesus' human genealogy, but does have a need to re-emphasize Jesus' divinity. Remember, the Graeco-Romans already had Hercules--that wasn't a concept they needed details to grasp. Paul's Graeco-Roman audience already believed that "divinity" was an inherited characteristic.

When Paul says to the Galatians "...God sent forth His Son, born of a woman," it really doesn't matter whether Mary was a virgin or not.

Let's say, for a moment, that Mary was not a virgin at the time. Frankly, it makes no difference. The whole issue of her virginity is to make clear that Jesus was the direct and immediate product of an act of God, not a natural conception. But if we are clear on that, we don't even need her virginity.
 
Upvote 0

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
The whole discussion about the word 'bethulah' in Isaiah with plenty of citations is given by a bible scholar here:

isa714-heb.jpg


Matthew 1:23 quotes the 2nd century BC(E) Greek Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14: The virgin shall be with child
and shall bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanu-El. The Greek word for "virgin" in both the Greek Septuagint and Matthew is parthenos, which means a virgin female.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. This rare noun (used 7x in Hebrew Bible) signifies a young woman, a girl, or an unmarried maiden (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Isa 7:14; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8). The focus of almah is on youth, not virginity.


The verbal root of the noun almah [alam] often means to be concealed, hidden, or covered. For example, God hides his eyes from looking on the sins of his people (Isa 1:15). God hides certain facts from his prophet (2 Kings 4:27). And the psalmist asks why God hides himself in times of trouble (Ps 10:1).


Moses' sister, Miryam, is an almah or "girl" (Exod 2:8) who followed her brother's basket-ark down the Nile. The Bible doesn't say how much older she was than Moses, but the story implies Miryam was not yet a teenager who had reached puberty. Presumably, she was a virgin, concealed by her family from inappropriate experiences before marriage.

Just after killing Goliath, the shepherd boy David is called an elem, the masculine form of almah (1 Sam 17:56). English Bibles render the word "young man, youth, young fellow, stripling [adolescent]." Whether the word, in the case of males, denotes virginity is not clear. But it connotes a measure of innocence or lack of adult experience, perhaps even in battle.

Twice, the Jewish translators who produced the Greek Septuagint (LXX) in the 2nd century BCE rendered almah as parthenos:

Gen 24:43 — Isaac's future wife Rebekah is "the maiden/virgin [Heb. ha'almah]"
Isa 7:14 — Isaiah's wife is "the maiden/virgin" [Heb. ha'almah]


In the five other occurences of almah the LXX translators used neanis (young girl) (Exod 2:8; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8).

At Isa 7:14 the Great Isaiah Scroll (pictured at top) reads ha'almah harah, "the maiden has conceived" or "shall conceive" [prophetic perfect]:


Who is the Almah in Isaiah 7:14?
Full discussion of this prophecy about the Almah who will bear a son is beyond the scope of this word study. But its wider context is noteworthy.


Isaiah's wife gives him two sons with symbolic, prophetic names (Isa 7:3 Shear-Yashuv; 8:3 Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz). Perhaps the almah in 7:14 who bears the son named Immanu-El is also Isaiah's wife, though the one definition for almah of unmarried female does not apply to her. The text says she was a "prophetess" (nevi'ah, 8:3): a declarer of the word of God, and her sons were prophetic signs or messages to Israel.

If Isaiah's wife is the almah in 7:14, her son Immanu-El was not born to a virgin mother.

Of course, Isaiah may have been describing another almah, who was indeed a betulah. Her giving birth to a son would indeed be a miracle "sign" (ot). But the prophecy here doesn't make her identity clear. This is why commentators still differ about the meaning of almah in this passage.
 
Upvote 0

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
Let's say, for a moment, that Mary was not a virgin at the time. Frankly, it makes no difference. The whole issue of her virginity is to make clear that Jesus was the direct and immediate product of an act of God, not a natural conception. But if we are clear on that, we don't even need her virginity.

Do you justify doubting her virginity ?
 
Upvote 0

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
So we agree that Jesus claimed to be God. That should end the discussion.

Well okay fine but only if you disagree to what peter declared in Acts 5:29-30

and this kind of objection, which is common among non-Christians, arises solely from their unfamiliarity with the Trinitarian nature of God (and the Incarnation), even if they have read or heard about it and know the generalities of the concept.

Well The concept of christian trinity is questionable .

220px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

1)Throughout the Bible, the Holy Spirit is described as the power of God. It is never addressed as an individual or a separate entity.
  • Zechariah 4:6 “… Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.”

  • Micah 3:8 “But as for me, I am filled with POWER, with the Spirit of the LORD…”

  • II Timothy 1:7 – For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control”.

  • Act 1:8 – “But you will receive POWER when the Holy Spirit has come upon you…“.
2)Holy Spirit can be quenched“Do not quench the Spirit” (1Th 5:19).

3)Jesus never called the Holy Spirit as His Father even if He was conceived by it.
If Holy Spirit is an entity in the God Family, Jesus should have called the Holy Spirit as Father since we can read in Matthew 1:20;

“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

4)Paul’s salutations in His epistles never mentioned the Holy Spirit.

Paul did not just ignore the Holy Spirit once, twice or thrice, but 13 TIMES! Surely, we should have seen God punishing or even just telling Paul that he forgot someone in the God family, right?

  • Rom 1:7 – To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • 1Co 1:3 – Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • 2Co 1:2 – Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Gal 1:3 – Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

  • Eph 1:2 – Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
5. The Holy Spirit was NOT mentioned in visions
Another interesting fact is whenever a servant of God has a vision of the throne of God; the Holy Spirit is not mentioned.

  • Act 7:55-56 – “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”

  • Daniel 7:9-14 – Daniel describes here the Ancient of Days, which we know as God the Father along with millions of angelic being. Daniel also mentioned the “One like the Son of Man” who later became Jesus Christ.

  • Revelation 4-5, 21 – these chapters describe the end-time vision and the appearing of God’s throne. Yet, the Holy Spirit is absent.
This verse is itself disputed for the word could not have existed in the beginning without the speaker

Please explain uwu. You cant prove creation I am pretty sure .
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well okay fine but only if you disagree to what peter declared in Acts 5:29-30
I agree with Acts 5:29 and agree that Jesus claimed to be God. If you don't understand the Bible, that's another issue, but we have shown from a number of verses that Jesus did himself claim divinity, and that that's not just something that others have said about him. This was the subject of the thread.

Now, as for the verses and comments you added.

1. The Holy Ghost is described in Scripture using a personal pronoun, therefore he cannot be simply an inanimate force. It is incorrect to say, as you did, that "throughout" the Bible this "power" idea is to be found.

2. "Jesus never called the Holy Spirit as his Father." That's correct. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

3. Paul did not mention him. Agreed. So what?

4. The HS is not mentioned in visions. Again, so what? Each person of the Blessed Trinity is special in his own way, so there is no logical reason why every sermon or exposition must work in a mention of each of the three. The Father was seen as if in a human body. Jesus was human as well as God. The Holy Spirit did not assume a human nature or the appearance of a human.

5. (From the previous post) When Christ is referred to as the Word as in John and in Revelation, it doesn't mean a spoken sound. That it refers to Christ Jesus is evident in both of these verses if you read carefully. For example, the most famous reference is John 1:1ff and it clearly says not only that the Word was God but then goes on to make explicity clear that Jesus of Nazareth is that "Word."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
I agree with Acts 5:29 and agree that Jesus claimed to be God. If you don't understand the Bible, that's another issue, but we have shown from a number of verses that Jesus did himself claim divinity, and that that's not just something that others have said about him. This was the subject of this thread.

Mathew 6:6 jesus tells you to pray the one who is in heaven . Not him .
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Mathew 6:6 jesus tells you to pray the one who is in heaven . Not him .
That's right. He said to pray to the Father.

So?

Look...the fact here is that we've answered the question of the thread. You and we already have agreed that Jesus himself claimed to be God.

From then on you are merely saying that you don't like it. There is nothing that you have raised in these last few posts that negates the essential beliefs of Christians concerning the nature of God. You simply hold a different view of God.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What are you saying here? Are you saying that Jesus is not God?
He is not "God" in the sense that Christians make him out to be. They believe he is "God" in the same sense his Father YHWH is "God". However, the Hebrew word "elohim" and the Greek word "theos" were used of beings other than YHWH (the only true God/Elohim). Therefore, in order to maintain monotheism, Yeshua must be a lesser elohim than his Father. When we use the English word "God" with a capital "G", it can only mean the "one true God". Yeshua clearly said that position belongs to his Father alone (John 17:3). Therefore, Yeshua must be a lesser elohim as in Psalm 82:6.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,265
US
✟1,474,808.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He is not "God" in the sense that Christians make him out to be. They believe he is "God" in the same sense his Father YHWH is "God". However, the Hebrew word "elohim" and the Greek word "theos" were used of beings other than YHWH (the only true God/Elohim). Therefore, in order to maintain monotheism, Yeshua must be a lesser elohim than his Father. When we use the English word "God" with a capital "G", it can only mean the "one true God". Yeshua clearly said that position belongs to his Father alone (John 17:3). Therefore, Yeshua must be a lesser elohim as in Psalm 82:6.

Making Jesus a "lesser elohim" doesn't maintain monotheism, it' eliminates it.

The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are One. That's the maintenance of monotheism.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Making Jesus a "lesser elohim" doesn't maintain monotheism, it' eliminates it.
Yeshua's Father is the "only true God" based on Yeshua's own words in John 17:3. Christianity has made Yeshua into the God he was praying to.

The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are One. That's the maintenance of monotheism.
No, that's the contention of Christians, but not of Scripture. The Father and the Son are of one accord. They are united/one in purpose. They are not one and the same God.
 
Upvote 0

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's right. He said to pray to the

From then on you are merely saying that you don't like it. There is nothing that you have raised in these last few posts that negates the essential beliefs of Christians concerning the nature of God. You simply hold a different view of God.

How would you tackle the fact that Jesus also said - I can’t do anything by myself. Whatever I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just. I don’t seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me. [John 5:30]


I’m going up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [John 20:17]

and this kind of objection, which is common among non-Christians, arises solely from their unfamiliarity with the Trinitarian nature of God (and the Incarnation), even if they have read or heard about it and know the generalities of the concept. No difficulty exists for Christians when such passages are cited by members of other faiths.

Jesus is sometimes referred to as ‘Lord’ in the Bible and at other times as ‘Son of God’. God is called the ‘Father’, so putting these names together it could be claimed that Jesus is the son of God. But if we look at each of these titles in context we will find that they are symbolic and not to be taken literally.
‘Son of God’ is a term used in ancient Hebrew for a righteous person. God calls Israel his ‘˜son’: This is what the LORD says: Israel is my oldest son [Exodus 4:22]. Also, David is called the ‘˜Son of God’: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ [Psalm 2:7]. In fact anyone who is righteous is referred to as God’s ‘son’: All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons and daughters [Romans 8:14].
In the same way, when the word ‘Father’ is used to refer to God it shouldn’t be taken literally. Instead it’s a way of saying God is the creator, sustainer, cherisher etc. There are many verses for us to understand this symbolic meaning of the word ‘Father’, for example: one God and Father of all. [Ephesians 4:6].
Jesus is sometimes called ‘˜Lord’ by the disciples. ‘Lord’ is a term used for God and also for people who are held in high esteem. There are many examples of the word ‘Lord’ being used for people in the Bible: So they (Joseph’s brothers) went up to Joseph’s steward and spoke to him at the entrance to the house. ‘We beg your pardon, our lord,’ they said. [Genesis 43:19-20]. Also, in other parts of the Bible, Jesus is even called a ‘servant’ of God by the disciples: the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. [Acts 3:13]. This clearly shows that when ‘Lord’ is used to refer to Jesus, it is a title of respect not of divinity.

The living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father. [John 6:57].

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9).

You cant simply agree to one verse in bible and discard other .
 
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I agree with you. Im not going to argue with this Guy hes a Hindu pagan Idol worshiper. Its very dangerous fellow shipping with pagans . Alot of these people have unclean spirits. They will argue with you they have religious spirits, rebellion spirits. You'll get no where with these kind of people. The devil is very sneaky he figures a way to get in your life. If you engage with a person who is demonically driven your basically giving the devil legal right into your life. I need to repent and cut any soul ties. Heres a good scripture.

2 Corinthians 6:14King James Version (KJV)
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
.
I agree, and I think my post to him gave him the knowledge of what I think of his beliefs, and that he does not have the ability to judge mine.......Because they are spiritually discerned.
 
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You are a massive retard . Lets talk some logic uwu. I will be quoting from revelation . However I can provide moar to prove that your God has a body .
"And when he had taken the book, the four beast and four and twenty elders ell down before the Lamb, having everyone of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints." (5:8.)

I wonder when Christ was not in heaven whom did these four beasts and twenty-four elders, etc., worship by burning incense and lighting lamps and offering food (eatable) performing arti.*Now the you condemn idol-worship, whilst your heaven is the veritable home of idolatry.

Arti is ceremony performed by idolators in adoration with a lamp.

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple." (7:15.)


Is not this the crudest form of Idolatry. Does not it show that the Biblical God is localized and embodied like a man? It seems that the Christian God does not at all sleep during the night because had it not beeso, He would not have been worshiped during the night, or if He did sleep His sleep must have been very much disturbed during the night but if he worked day and night He must be very tired.


"And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer: and there was a given unto him much incense. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightenings, and earthquake." (8:3 - 5.)

Now even in (the Christian heaven) there is an altar, incense is burnt, lamps lighted, eatables offered, and trumpets sounded before the altar. Is their heaven in any way less ostentatious than a temple of idol worshippers? If anything, there is more pomp and show there.


"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angle stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein." (11:1.)

Let alone the earthly temples, even in the heaven of the Christians, temples of God are built and measured. Their teachings are illogical as their heaven. Take for instance the Lord's supper. In it the Christians eat bread and drink wine imagining them to be Christ's flesh and blood. Again, to keep images of the Cross in the Church is nothing short of Idol-worship.

Now get rekt !



>Spiritual matters
A blind believer like you lacks the authority to distribute certifications with regards to spirituality.

I do have Authority, to call you a Hindu Pagan, because you do not worship the ONE TRUE GOD!

As far as your ability to judge Spirititual matters.
Scripture from Paul described you 2,000 years ago.

1 Co. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Nuf said, don't bother to answer, you have nothing of value to say. BYE!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
I do have Authority, to call you a Hindu Pagan, because you do not worship the ONE TRUE GOD!

Bible itself proves that YHVh is not amighty enough to be called god . Nor his qualities conform to be an almighty.

As far as your ability to judge Spirititual matters.
Scripture from Paul described you 2,000 years ago.

1 Co. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Nuf said, don't bother to answer, you have nothing of value to say. BYE!

There is not an atom worth of spirituality in christianity . its funny you think blind faith with slavish submission = Spirituality .

Spirituality rather is an integral component of Yoga kundalini practices so that you realize the self and be like God [Elevate to higher planes of existence].

As for the foolishness its obvious who is being a foolish . Yours is the only faith that brands Intelligence as the root cause of sin . Humanity existed before Abrhamic faiths and work of miracles is not a new story . Nobody knew Yehovah in 10k BCE . He was invented with advent of Judaism .
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yeshua's Father is the "only true God" based on Yeshua's own words in John 17:3. Christianity has made Yeshua into the God he was praying to..

The only way that the critics here can justify their denunciation of the Christian faith is to play one part of scripture off against another, claiming that the one verse they choose for this purpose or the one they cite for that other purpose defines the issue. But no educated Christian would do that, even considering that there are some areas of doctrinal disagreement among believers.
It's like the story of the blind men being asked to describe an elephant. The one who grasped the tail said one thing, the one who touched the hide said another, the one who only felt the trunk had a different impression of the nature of elephants, etc.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
How would you tackle the fact that Jesus also said - I can’t do anything by myself. Whatever I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just. I don’t seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me. [John 5:30]
Almost all the verses that have been cited here lately are of this sort--verses that demonstrate the fact that Jesus was a human with all the qualities of a human. He wept. He questioned. He felt pain, etc. He was a human being. BUT of course he was also God come to Earth. If you choose the verses that seem to say he was human--well, he was. That doesn't mean that he was not also God.

And of course, you could choose to cite the ones that seem to prove he was God, ignoring the ones that suggest his humanity. Except that you aren't doing that because the purpose of this thread is to debunk his divinity. But it would be an interesting exercise, don't you agree, to have a thread in which the verses that suggest his divinity are thrown into the discussion as "proof," ignoring all which suggest his humanity, and then suggest that he must not have been human but only a spirit who took on the shape of a human? The course of the discussion would proceed just about the same way this one has.

Jesus is sometimes referred to as ‘Lord’ in the Bible and at other times as ‘Son of God’.
And he's probably called by a dozen other such terms, if truth be told. 'Son of Man,' for example.

God is called the ‘Father’, so putting these names together it could be claimed that Jesus is the son of God. But if we look at each of these titles in context we will find that they are symbolic and not to be taken literally.
‘Son of God’ is a term used in ancient Hebrew for a righteous person. God calls Israel his ‘˜son’: This is what the LORD says: Israel is my oldest son [Exodus 4:22]. Also, David is called the ‘˜Son of God’: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ [Psalm 2:7]. In fact anyone who is righteous is referred to as God’s ‘son’: All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons and daughters [Romans 8:14].
Yes, we know that. How else could a being with two complete natures be described among the Hebrews except by using such descriptions? Remember that you're not getting this information from some theology textbook, but from the Bible which records the life of Christ among the people of a certain place and time in human history.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The only way that the critics here can justify their denunciation of the Christian faith is to play one part of scripture off against another, claiming that the one verse they choose for this purpose or the one they cite for that other purpose defines the issue. But no educated Christian would do that, even considering that there are some areas of doctrinal disagreement among believers.
It's like the story of the blind men being asked to describe an elephant. The one who grasped the tail said one thing, the one who touched the hide said another, the one who only felt the trunk had a different impression of the nature of elephants, etc.
I don't pit one Scripture against another. I accept the entire counsel of Scripture and harmonize them without adding to the texts what is not there. I don't build man made doctrines like the trinity, the God/Man, the incarnation, etc. There are no Scriptures declaring Yeshua to be the "only true God". We do have verses that erroneously translate elohim and theos as "God" when used of Yeshua. That is their trinitarian bias being added into the text. Then, because such translations obviously yield two Gods, the trinity doctrine conveniently makes them into one God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't pit one Scripture against another.
I didn't intend to personalize my comment there. In fact, I've lost track of which poster brought up which verse in this long thread.

But the point is that if anyone says "This verse says X, so that proves...." without any interest in what the rest of the Bible says on the same subject, he is pitting one verse against all others.

There are no Scriptures declaring Yeshua to be the "only true God". We do have verses that erroneously translate elohim and theos as "God" when used of Yeshua. That is their trinitarian bias being added into the text.
Uh, no. The Trinitarian bias, as you put it, exists only because the Bible, taken in toto, can hardly be read any other way but as defining God as One, but yet and in some way, as Three.
 
Upvote 0