praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Well. You went on and on about how this "angel" is different. I agree. However, the word "angel" itself is not uniquely relative to ALL the aspects/revelation we have concerning Christ.
Data on John 1:1
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
That's how you see it, but not how I do.
I'm simply seeking to rightly handle the Scriptures, studying rabbinical sources.
J.
Peterlag
Well-known member
We are bickering over a word and how it's used in the verb form. If Jesus was God and it was important to know that we would not be digging into the linguistics of words. It would be clearly taught and it is not. The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.
A claim about bickering over words is a false argument on your part. The words are everything here. Your preference for a book of Trinity in the bible is your philosophical preference on how God should make his essence known to people.
You find alternative excuses for passages that deny the dynamics that are happening. Your excuses deny the scriptures and, in this case, the association of Mark 14:61-62 with Dan 7:13-14 and 21-27. Jesus is called the Most High here. It is the claim of deity that troubled the High Priest.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
It's not the Scriptures I deny, but rather your understanding of them. Take for example Mark 14:61-62 that you quoted above. Let's take a look at your understanding of those verses. The high priest asked him if he was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. And he said he is. In your mind somehow the Son of the Blessed means something other than the Son of the Blessed. And yet I have no idea why.
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
I have no idea what you are rejecting of my observations.
101G
Well-known member
Pete, in your mind do you consider the Lord Jesus as a biological "Son?" ... yes or no.
if you say yes, then your whole argument is invalid. if not, then one must explain what the term "son" really means spiritually. then one can deduce the truth of the verse in question.
101G.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I don't know what you are thinking when you say "biological son" so I can't answer. What I can say is this... God put something in Mary that is very much like what a man puts in a woman and out came the man Jesus. So God refers to him as His son. Thus, he was born without Adam's blood or sin nature. And that would put him in a category very different from what some post here when they say a "mere" man.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The verse you brought up which is this...
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am:
Says Jesus is the Christ, the Son. How do you get Jesus is God out of that?
101G
Well-known member
Larry
Member
It was God's will...The Virgin Birth of Jesus
18 The birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way: His mother Mary had been promised to Joseph in marriage. But before they were married, Mary realized that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph was an honorable man and did not want to disgrace her publicly. So he decided to break the marriage agreement with her secretly.20 Joseph had this in mind when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. The angel said to him, “Joseph, descendant of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife. She is pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus [He Saves], because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this happened so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet came true: 23 “The virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name him Immanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him to do. He took Mary to be his wife. 25 He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25
Peterlag
Well-known member
God impregnated Mary. I never said God impregnated Mary as a man.
101G
Well-known member
civic
Well-known member
yes this is just one of the ways we see the Pre Incarnate Son in the O.T. There are many others revelations of the Son in the O.T.
So far what seems to be the view of those rejecting the deity of Christ in the Godhead is that God is incapable of incarnation. Also, it is odd to perceive Mary's pregnancy as done simply to make another ordinary human on earth. This account about Jesus is not logically shared just to convince people that Jesus is an important person. This pregnancy account hardly would have significance. Instead it would just make a point of controversy. The account of Mary would not make sense except as a way to understand the deity of Christ.
civic
Well-known member
And the verses they use are ripped from their intended context such as " God is not a man " and leave out the context " that He should lie or repent " to declare that God cannot be or become a man.
101G
Well-known member
101G don't believe many are rejecting the deity of the Lord Jesus, (yes, some do), only a few. but if God incarnated. (and 101G agree), how much of the ONE Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') 1. to make empty according to Philippians 2:7? was 1/3 of the Spirit was made empty, or 1/2 for Philippians 2:6 clearly states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
looking to hear your reply in an answer.
101G
101G
Well-known member
Correct, for God is a man, but not like you and 101G.... meaning a NATURAL man. for he became like us in order to redeem us to be like him. now that should tell us something there as to what kind of a man God is... not a fallen man. for in the beginning, the First Adam didn't have BLOOD until his fall/corruption. nor dose the LAST "ADAM" have blood either and never failed/fall, or was corrupt. ...... no end of LIFE.
so, God is a Man, for we are his IMAGE. ...... yes, he doesn't lie.
101G
Sure. They often apply the scriptures wrong in that sort of fashion. The other is people decide what God can do and use that as the restriction of what they accept of God. Often this is of definitions people create about God's nature, even of cultural concepts of God. Of course, context of verses people use against the deity of Christ is mostly (always?) missed.
If you are having trouble figuring out the incarnation of the Son, maybe there are some people that can help guide you.
