Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nonsense indeed!I have over two years in the Bible College. I have studied a lot of Hebrew and Greek. So you pretty much do not have a leg to stand on. Not that it really matters, if you want to waste your time on nonsense like this, then go right ahead and enjoy yourself.
You just conceded my point: I'm denying neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ, just that He considered Himself "God" and not just "the Son of God." In none of the texts you cite does Jesus call Himself "God!" Rather, Jesus reserves the title "God" for "the Father" and admits that "My Father is greater than I (John 14:28)." So in a sense we are debating semantics. The serious issue raised by Mark 10:17-18 is what Jesus means by denying that He is "good" and the relevance of that denial for Jesus' need for a baptism of repentance.Jesus often spoke indirectly, to avoid being killed before his appointed time.
The implications of his statements; e.g., being the Son of God, or "before Abraham was, I AM," were that he was God, and the Jews understood exactly what he was saying (Mk 2:3-7, Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18 8:58-59).
The apostles claimed that he was God (Jn 1:1, 14, and Mt 3:3, Ro 10:9, 13, Heb 1:6, Lk 1:67-68, 76, where he is YHWH).
Uh, the OT never prophesies that Jesus would be baptized. And what you mean by "perfect?" What is your response to the texts I cite implying that Jesus needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like every human?He came to fulfill all that was prophesied of the Messiah and to obey all God's laws so that he could meet the qualification of a perfect sacrifice without defect.
Are you too lazy to follow a debate closely? The texts I recently specified in post # 18, of course.What texts do you think I should read? I have read all of the Bible 7 times. How many times have you read the Bible?
Really and they teach you that nonsense there? I don't believe it. Of course the Bible is ABUNDANTLY clear that we are to be taught by the Holy Spirit and not man. If the best universities teach nonsense like that, then all the more we need to be very careful.Whoopie! And I have an MDiv from Princeton Seminary and a doctorate in New Testament and Judaism from Harvard (where I was a Teaching Fellow in New Testament and Classics). So please, let's just talk the issues.
2 years of Bible, and yet, you pontificate from ignorance without having read a single academic NT Introduction that deals with these subjexts in great detail.Really and they teach you that nonsense there? I don't believe it. Of course the Bible is ABUNDANTLY clear that we are to be taught by the Holy Spirit and not man. If the best universities teach nonsense like that, then all the more we need to be very careful.
Hardly! Matthew has 2 other sources, Q (from the German "Quelle," meaning "source" and M. Q is a collection of sayings of Jesus used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark or John. Q is the version of a sayings of Jesus collection that circulated west of the Jordan and the Coptric Gospel of Thomas is the version of a sayings of Jesus collection that circulated in the east.The Gospel of Mark has 16 chapters, while the Gospel of Matthew has 28 chapters. So if Matthew copied from Mark as you seem to claim then he must have really embellished. Actually,
First. T scholars agree that Matthew never wrote the Gospel that bears his name.To suggest that a disciple of Jesus learned from a child and not Jesus himself. Matthew traveled with Jesus. Mark only was sitting at the feet of Jesus when he was in Jerusalem.
Barnabas was right to criticize Paul for his lack of empathy for young Mark's first dangerous missionary effort. Barnabas rightly separated from Paul and took Mark with him on a missionary tour of Cyprus (15:37-39), where Mark vindicated Barnabas siding with him against Paul. Imdeed, Paul in effect acknowledges his mistake when he later reunites with Mark and praises him, among nd others, as a source of comfort (Colossians 4:10-11). Mark later becomes Peter's interpreter and missionary companion in Rome, where Mark writes our first Gospel based on Peter's teaching materials (1 Peter 5:13)There is an incident in the Book of Acts where Mark's departure during a missionary journey led to a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. This incident is often interpreted to imply a lack of maturity or commitment on Mark's part, from Paul's perspective at that time.
While Paul did not explicitly use the term "immature," his concern about Mark's previous actions during the mission trip and his decision not to take him on the subsequent journey imply a level of reservation regarding Mark's commitment or readiness for the rigors of their missionary work at that time.
Mark was there at the upper room to hear the teaching of Jesus and later on the teaching of Peter. So there is a lot of Peters teachings in Mark. What about the incident of Peter walking water? Mark was not even there, Matthew was. How absurd to say that Matthew who was an eyewitness copied from Mark who was not even there to witness the event.
Matthew 14:28-29 (NIV): "Lord, if it's you,' Peter replied, 'tell me to come to you on the water.' 'Come,' he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus."
Jesus spoke mostly from his humanity, not his divinity.You just conceded my point: I'm denying neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ, just that He considered Himself "God" and not just "the Son of God." In none of the texts you cite does Jesus call Himself "God!" Rather, Jesus reserves the title "God" for "the Father" and admits that "My Father is greater than I (John 14:28)."
Hogwash (the dirty hot water after scalding and shaving the hog at butchering).So in a sense we are debating semantics. The serious issue raised by Mark 10:17-18 is what Jesus means by denying that He is "good" and the relevance of that denial for Jesus' need for a baptism of repentance.
I have never claimed that Jesus said, "I am God."You just conceded my point: I'm denying neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ, just that He considered Himself "God" and not just "the Son of God."
Addressed in my post #29, above.Uh, the OT never prophesies that Jesus would be baptized. And what you mean by "perfect?" What is your response to the texts I cite implying that Jesus needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like every human?
You are calling me ignorant? That looks like a violation of the rules to me. Is that what they teach you in those fancy schools?2 years of Bible, and yet, you pontificate from ignorance
Nope! I have twice challenged you and others here to explain the sense in which Jesus is "perfect, " given the implication in Luke 2:45-52, Hebrews 4:15, and 5:8 that He needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like the rest of us. But neither you nor anyone else here has taken up the challenge and have instead ducked these texts.I have never claimed that Jesus said, "I am God."
However, what he thought of himself is pretty clear in Jn 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Which we find demonstrated by his apostles; e.g., Jn 1:1, 14.
Addressed in my post #29, above.
So no one can tell you what perfect means? No one has a dictionary. Perfect means MATURE and producing FRUIT. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it did not produce any fruit. Matthew 3:8 “Produce therefore fruit that is fitting of repentance.Nope! I have twice challenged you and others here to explain the sense in which Jesus is "perfect, "
He is spiritually perfect, he never sinned against God, but always obeyed him.Nope! I have twice challenged you and others here to explain the sense in which Jesus is "perfect, "
Did Jesus not indicate he was doing his Father's will?given the implication in Luke 2:45-52,
Your supposed "challenge" by Lk 2:45-52 is absurd.Hebrews 4:15, and 5:8 that He needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like the rest of us.
But neither you nor anyone else here has taken up the challenge and have instead ducked these texts.
The NT was written in Greek not in King James English and there is no one-to one equivalent between the Greek "teleos" and its English equivalent.So no one can tell you what perfect means? No one has a dictionary.
Uh, where in the NT do you find the word "perfect" used in connection with fruit-bearing? Does your concept of NT "perfection" allow Jesus to mature through a process of trial-and-error like every human and like Luke 2:45-52 illustrates?Perfect means MATURE and producing FRUIT. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it did not produce any fruit. Matthew 3:8 “Produce therefore fruit that is fitting of repentance.
Irrelevant to the key issue--that Jesus was inconsiderate to His parents by leaving the family entourage without permission and, worse, without telling His parents where he was going! Any parent would worry about possbile foul play.Did Jesus not indicate he was doing his Father's will?
So you actually believe that Jesus' pious motive for leaving Hs family unanounced excuses the 3 days of anguished search that He caused His parents?I note the distinction between Mary's "your father" (Joseph) and Jesus' "my Father" (God) in Lk 2:48-49.
Your supposed "challenge" by Lk 2:45-52 is absurd.
The Bible often uses the metaphor of bearing fruit to illustrate spiritual growth, the evidence of faith, and the manifestation of Christian virtues.Uh, where in the NT do you find the word "perfect" used in connection with fruit-bearing?
I like to go back to see what Moses said. False teaching and doctrine can be exposed that way. Only Jesus can add to what we receive from Moses. The teachings of Jesus is often in RED letters. Most of His teaching can be found in the Sermon on the Mount.The NT was written in Greek not in King James English and there is no one-to one equivalent between the Greek "teleos" and its English equivalent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?