It's Time To Look At The Bible From A Different Perspective

a reply to: Akragon

Yeah, Jesus only used the OT to describe what he knew in order to relate his knowledge to that of the people of the time and in that region. He defied the scriptures and corrected them on more than one occasion. If the OT was fully inspired by himself, he wouldn't have broken anything in it, but he did.

What Jesus did with the OT is kinda like what people like yourself and I do with the NT. Just because we use scripture from it does not mean we believe it to be 100% God-inspired.

John 5
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me

Key word 'think'. Just because you 'think' something is true doesn't mean it is.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The Pharisees knew the scripture well but Jesus went against their supposed knowledge showing them to be wrong.

The Pharisees were not wrong about everything. What they missed was the meaning behind their rituals. Jesus came to explain that those things were supposed to reflect internal changes. They were not wrong about who God was.

The word used for 'within' here literally means 'within', not 'among you' or 'in your midst' like some translations imply.

Within us, not out there in the world.

Nothing that I have said contradicts that ideology ? Now i completely agree that the kingdom Jesus ushered is not of this world. We can experience it here within us when we are cleansed in the baptism of fire and sealed with the Spirit of God forever. The fact that his kingdom is within doesn't mean he was not fully God. You may notice directly below that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. This again is an old testament reference and is a claim of divinity:

“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples"

Then we have the Isaiah prophecy about the Messiah:
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The word Immanuel means, God with us. Jesus is the son given.


Isaiah 9
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.

He will be called Mighty God, Everlasting Father.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Except Jesus wasn't called any of those titles... not until much later did people start calling him such things...

He was never called Immanuel

OR Father... he actually spoke out against calling people that...

Or Wonderful counselor

OR Mighty God...

Or any of those names Isaiah used... and he certainly did not bring peace

In fact there was nothing but war before and after his life

a reply to: Akragon

, even though he tells us plainly many times that he is "THE SON OF GOD" not God in the flesh as John says in the first chapter of his gospel...

The greek word for son, is huios, and properly it means a son by birth or adoption. Figuratively it means anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. The strongs number is 5207 if you want to look it up yourself. Jesus was saying that he shared the same nature as God. Again the Jews understood this and it is precisely why they tried to seize him. It is also the reason the Jews had him crucified, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” You are pretending that conversation between two Jews would be simply confusing. Thats not the case the reactions of the Jews explain it perfectly. Not only that it is the same claim his followers died for proclaiming after his death. You are trying to rewrite history.

People said many things about him that weren't true... including the fact that he claimed to be God, which he did not... You should keep reading that passage instead of just stopping when you find what you want to hear...

I didn't stop when I found what I wanted to hear. I just didn't want to over whelm you with information.

I am not really sure how the section you bolded contradicts anything I've said. All Jesus is asking is are you accusing me of blasphemy because I claimed to be the Son of God?

He admits to making that claim and all of this starts because they wanted to know if he was the Messiah. The son the was given who would be called the Everlasting Father and Mighty God. Jesus says to them I have told you that I am but you do not believe.

“How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I DID TELL YOU, but you do not believe.

You are ignoring a bunch of details of the text to fit your view.

And yet again we find that Jesus merely claimed to have existed before this incarnation... and not claiming to be God

Just saying I AM is not a declaration of himself being the Father... they are not one and the same... Just as when two become one In marriage they are ONE but not one and the same.

No just saying I AM is not a declaration of being God, but in the presence of 1st century Jewish priest it is, because they are well aware of the name God gave to Moses. You broke the two parts I gave you up because it obviously shows he is claiming to be God. You ignore the setting because it does not fit your argument.

Jesus used the scriptures people understood, the ones he was raised on to relate to those he was speaking to... but he also knew what was of God and what was not, which is why he didn't use a lot of scripture in his sermons... only bits and pieces of them again, to relate to his audience..

Are purposely misrepresenting Jesus? The Jesus of the Bible astounded people with his knowledge of Scripture and God. He also spoke of Moses as though the current Scriptures of the day were indeed divine...

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, to fulfill. Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”

Again speaking to the Pharisees

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[e]
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Jesus ask the Pharisees whose son is the Messiah, and to show them they were wrong, he brings up Psalms 110 in which David says The Lord said to My Lord Sit at my right hand. He was speaking about the Messiah and Jesus ask them if David called him lord how could he be David's son. Again this is a claim of a divine nature.

You are not thinking about how first century Jews and Romans would have heard these words.

a reply to: Akragon

Go read Isaiah 53. The Messiah comes in two forms. The suffering servant and the conquering king. Jesus came as the suffering servant and it is why most of the Jews missed him. They were looking for the conquering king.

a reply to: Akragon

Not to mention we also have Thomas calling him God and Jesus does not correct him instead he says you believed because you have seen blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

27Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?

If Jesus wasn't God but just a good servant he would have told Thomas no I am not God, but he didn't do that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The greek word for son, is huios, and properly it means a son by birth or adoption. Figuratively it means anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. The strongs number is 5207 if you want to look it up yourself. Jesus was saying that he shared the same nature as God. Again the Jews understood this and it is precisely why they tried to seize him. It is also the reason the Jews had him crucified, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” You are pretending that conversation between two Jews would be simply confusing. Thats not the case the reactions of the Jews explain it perfectly. Not only that it is the same claim his followers died for proclaiming after his death. You are trying to rewrite history.

Im in no way trying to "rewrite history"... Im simply saying the people he was speaking to didn't understand what he was claiming to be... he was not claiming to be GOD... he said it straight to them, I claimed to be the son of God, which refutes the very notion of "claiming to be God"... Though, keep in mind the Pharisee's would take anything related to or associating ones self with God as blasphemy, which would including saying he was the son of God... blasphemy is blasphemy... even to this day jews will not write or type GOD... that has always remained the same before and after and onto this day with that religion.

HE completely rejects the very idea that he claimed to be God in that verse... let alone the many obvious places where he was completely subordinate to HIM... NOT equal in any way shape or form... which is clear through out the gospels

I didn't stop when I found what I wanted to hear. I just didn't want to over whelm you with information.

LOL please brother... as if I haven't heard every argument you have on this subject hundreds of times

I am not really sure how the section you bolded contradicts anything I've said. All Jesus is asking is are you accusing me of blasphemy because I claimed to be the Son of God?

He admits to making that claim and all of this starts because they wanted to know if he was the Messiah. The son the was given who would be called the Everlasting Father and Mighty God. Jesus says to them I have told you that I am but you do not believe.

“How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I DID TELL YOU, but you do not believe.

You are ignoring a bunch of details of the text to fit your view.

What exactly did he admit to being... straight from the book? The SON of GOD... you can dance around it all you want, the fact remains that he did not once claim to be God... others did, HE did not... EVER

And this also only reinforces my previous point... Even Jesus knew that not everything in "scripture" was accurate, or even truth for that matter... NO one ever called him Mighty Father... or any of the terms used in Isaiah... HE did not every bring peace to the world which is what "the messiah" spoken about in the OT was supposed to do, and that is actually one of the principal reasons Judaism rejects Jesus as the messiah... of course its not the only reason

No just saying I AM is not a declaration of being God, but in the presence of 1st century Jewish priest it is, because they are well aware of the name God gave to Moses. You broke the two parts I gave you up because it obviously shows he is claiming to be God. You ignore the setting because it does not fit your argument.

You just stated just like every other Christian does, that because he said I AM, he was saying that he was God... now you're saying that isn't what you said...

In the presences of a 1st century priest, he was still the son of God, and knew better then those that give the law... They were clueless as to what he actually meant, and only assumed he was claiming to be God, but he stuffed it down their throats in that passage that I explained quite clearly... the question mark would have no place in that passage if he wasn't QUESTIONING them... I didn't ignore anything, but in fact you did... why would he question them if he actually claimed to be God?

Are purposely misrepresenting Jesus? The Jesus of the Bible astounded people with his knowledge of Scripture and God. He also spoke of Moses as though the current Scriptures of the day were indeed divine...

IF he believed they were all divine, he would have followed them to the letter, but he didn't...

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, to fulfill. Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”

What law?

He broke a few laws Moses gave, so it couldn't have been those...

how about "the royal law" which remains unbroken to this day?

Jesus ask the Pharisees whose son is the Messiah, and to show them they were wrong, he brings up Psalms 110 in which David says The Lord said to My Lord Sit at my right hand. He was speaking about the Messiah and Jesus ask them if David called him lord how could he be David's son. Again this is a claim of a divine nature.

I've never once denied the divinity of Jesus... sitting at the right hand of God is hardly sitting IN his seat

You Trinitarians have this three in one idea drilled into your heads, which screws all sorts of things up... including facing some parts of reality... Jesus did not believe in such a concept... neither did any of his followers

Yet you all seem to overlook that and concede to the doctrines of man... Pretty sure Jesus said something about that as well

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Akragon

Go read Isaiah 53. The Messiah comes in two forms. The suffering servant and the conquering king. Jesus came as the suffering servant and it is why most of the Jews missed him. They were looking for the conquering king.

Because I've never read Isaiah before right?

Again, just because its written in the book does not make it true, or accurate...

He wasn't king while on this earth... not king of anything... so said chapter was not correct...

Not to mention we also have Thomas calling him God and Jesus does not correct him instead he says you believed because you have seen blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

27Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?

If Jesus wasn't God but just a good servant he would have told Thomas no I am not God, but he didn't do that.

Right... the absolute favorite passage Christians use to prove he was God...

Doubting Thomas suddenly claims him to be God, yet no one else did...

Probably never even happened, but even if it did, why is one man saying he was God... the doubter of the group, suddenly absolutely correct?

You don't find it strange that after he died, people started claiming he was God... never while he lived, only after he returned.... backed of course by revelation which was rejected by the church for the first 400 some odd years

sorry man... the Thomas passage adds no weight to the argument what so ever...

At least not to anyone that isn't a Christian... Christians will take anything as their proof though

a reply to: Akragon

Im in no way trying to "rewrite history"... Im simply saying the people he was speaking to didn't understand what he was claiming to be... he was not claiming to be GOD... he said it straight to them, I claimed to be the son of God, which refutes the very notion of "claiming to be God"...

Dude, that is not the only title he gave to himself. Also I just gave you the strongs number for that word which will show you that figuratively that means anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. The difference here is the context does not back your interpretation up. The response of the Jews makes no sense from your perspective. You are trying to rewrite history. Historically Jesus was crucified for claiming to be God. I didn't just give you one instance of Jesus claiming to be God. I gave you at least three and you have just ignored everything I've said and continued to just debate with nothing but your opinion and terrible reading comprehension.

HE completely rejects the very idea that he claimed to be God in that verse... let alone the many obvious places where he was completely subordinate to HIM... NOT equal in any way shape or form... which is clear through out the gospels

I have already answered this with Philippians 2. One of the parts of the Godhead chose to willingly lower himself below the others. So please explain how Philippians 2 doesn't teach that Christ was God, and that he willingly chose to become servant by taking on the likeness of man. Like look at how you are arguing man. In what verse? If you want to make a point go thru each word in a verse and explain how your reading it because we obviously don't read English or Hebrew the same way.

What exactly did he admit to being... straight from the book? The SON of GOD... you can dance around it all you want, the fact remains that he did not once claim to be God... others did, HE did not... EVER

Your refusal to accept what the man says is astounding. I never said he didn't claim to be the Son of God. I simply interpret that from a 1st century mindset rather than your 21 century perspective. I gave you John 8, which is obviously an instance of him claiming to be God. He is making a reference to the name of God, uses it for himself, and the Jews try to kill him for it. You are pretending that conversation was just lost on these men with no reason to believe so.

t I explained quite clearly... the question mark would have no place in that passage if he wasn't QUESTIONING them... I didn't ignore anything, but in fact you did... why would he question them if he actually claimed to be God?

Please explain what you think that question says, because I do not see your point here. Not trying to be rude or attack you but honestly from my perspective it seems like you are just incapable of understanding the words on the page. So there is a disconnect here somewhere.

What law?

He broke a few laws Moses gave, so it couldn't have been those...

how about "the royal law" which remains unbroken to this day?

Again you are ignoring his audience and the context of the situation...he is talking again to Jews telling them do not think I came to destroy the law, but to fulfill. You ignore the Bible as a whole so again you do not see that he referencing old testament scripture. Jesus came to be the permanent sacrifice for sin. He came to fulfill what the law required for human salvation. You are ignoring what Jesus teaches constantly. I have given multiple instances that show he taught he was God, or failed to correct people who thought he was. He claimed to be the Messiah and the Messiah was meant to be God. You are simply off base man. I really can't understand your position at all. It just bad reading comprehension from my perspective.

I've never once denied the divinity of Jesus... sitting at the right hand of God is hardly sitting IN his seat

You Trinitarians have this three in one idea drilled into your heads, which screws all sorts of things up... including facing some parts of reality... Jesus did not believe in such a concept... neither did any of his followers

Yet you all seem to overlook that and concede to the doctrines of man... Pretty sure Jesus said something about that as well

Like are you kidding? John 1. John claims he is God. Thomas claims he is God. Paul claims he is God it goes on and on.

9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Again another instance telling us Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God.

've never once denied the divinity of Jesus... sitting at the right hand of God is hardly sitting IN his seat

The right hand of God is a title... see what I am saying man you are just way off base with everything your saying he wasn't literally sitting next to God.....to sit at the right hand of an earthly king was a position of honor and meant that person could uniquely special to the king and could act with his authority. Son of God again is a title. You simply are way off here man.

a reply to: Akragon

Because I've never read Isaiah before right?

Again, just because its written in the book does not make it true, or accurate...

He wasn't king while on this earth... not king of anything... so said chapter was not correct...

I show you something that shows you are wrong, and you just ignore it completely. Or maybe its cognitive dissonance. We were talking about the nature of the Messiah. One shows that he is God, the other shows that he will come as a suffering servant. Everything I have said is coherent with all of Scripture what you are saying is hardly ever coherent. Jesus has his kingdom...gah you are lost friend.

Right... the absolute favorite passage Christians use to prove he was God...

Doubting Thomas suddenly claims him to be God, yet no one else did...

Probably never even happened, but even if it did, why is one man saying he was God... the doubter of the group, suddenly absolutely correct?

Also happened to James...So again I show an instance in which Jesus accepts someone calling him God. You dismiss it by throwing it out of the BIble. No wonder you think Jesus never claimed to be God, anytime he does you throw it out or distort the meaning of the text considerably.

You don't find it strange that after he died, people started claiming he was God...

People called him God while he was alive all the time. The day he road in to Jerusalem on the donkey everyone was shouting Hosanna! The Son of David. Hosanna in the highest! That is a form of praise and worship. The Jews are only meant to praise and worship God. Second I find it very strange that the Christian movement even got off the ground in Jerusalem its part of the reason I trust Christ so much.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Oh where to start... sigh

Dude, that is not the only title he gave to himself. Also I just gave you the strongs number for that word which will show you that figuratively that means anyone shaing the same nature as their Father. The difference here is the context does not back your interpretation up. The response of the Jews makes no sense from your perspective. You are trying to rewrite history.

Except it makes complete sense in context of the conversation he was having with the Jews... They said "we are going to stone you for claiming to be God", Jesus said You're going to stone me because I claimed to be the SON of GOD?

what is there left to understand? They said you claimed to be God, HE said NO I claimed to be the SON of GOD... which is not the same as claiming to be GOD... to the Jews it was the same, but that wasn't his claim. Like I said before many times, in Judaism Anything that relates a person to God IS blasphemy... you can't even write the word without it being blasphemy... This whole concept was wrong from the beginning... The SON of GOD, is not the same as GOD

Where else was the term used in the bible? In Genesis... In Job... In Daniel... none of which were referring to Jesus who was apparently "the only son of God"... OF course im sure you somehow believe they were all referring to Jesus... i''ve heard that time and time again, but that simply isn't reality... In Luke, ADAM was refered to as "the son of God"... was ADAM actually Jesus... Im sure you believe he was, but again that just isn't reality... Only in the Christian world it is reality

Historically Jesus was crucified for claiming to be God. I didn't just give you one instance of Jesus claiming to be God. I gave you at least three and you have just ignored everything I've said and continued to just debate with nothing but your opinion and terrible reading comprehension.

Historically... Jesus was crucified for sedition... the Jews wanted him dead for blasphemy... They claimed he said he was God, but again for the umpteenth time... HE never once made that claim... others did, he did not ever... not once

The words I AM GOD never came from his mouth... Not once!

Even at his trial they asked, are you the SON OF GOD... he said I AM... they understood that to mean HE thought he was God... but Jesus would not make that claim, and HE knew claiming to be the SON of GOD is not claiming to be GOD

To the Jews that means the same thing... Jesus knew better.

How do we know this... the Pharisee's were clueless as to how to follow their own book... how could they possibly understand a man that knew the flaws in them and their religion? Just as he was talking to Nicodemus...

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Him, a master of Israel... a teacher, Jesus tells him straight, you don't have a clue...

Instead of going over your replies point by point which will take a long time, lets try a different approach...

Why does the messiah NEED to be God... Your answer of course will be "because the bible says so"

Well lets see what else the bible says about "the messiah"

HE was supposed to...

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)... Never happened

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6) Never happened... at least not while he was alive

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) Never happened

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9) Never happened

So despite all thing Jesus didn't accomplish... HE was still the messiah....

SO the options are, HE wasn't actually the messiah as he claimed to be

OR

The bible was WRONG about who the messiah was

IF he wasn't the messiah... Well we have a big problem because even I personally believe he was

But IF the book was actually wrong about who the messiah was... why does the messiah NEED to be GOD

simply put... HE did not need to be GOD... AND he wasn't, NOR did he claim to be anything more then THE SON OF GOD

Lets look at some of the evidence that he wasn't actually God....

HE said specifically in three places in the gospel of John... HIS FATHER is greater then HE

In every situation in his ministry, HE states specifically ... "what he was doing, and what he did, was not of HIMSELF, but GOD working though him"

HE attributes everything to "THE FATHER" not to himself...

HE Prays to HIS FATHER...

HE says specifically...
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And even after he returns to his followers... what is one of the last things he says in Mathew?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

ALL power is GIVEN to me.... WHO gave him said POWER?

WHO can Give YOUR god "all the power" of heaven and earth?

WHO has that authority?

THE FATHER.... HIS GOD

You say I am "way off base"... well the feeling is mutual brother... that is the exact way I feel about Christianity as a whole... WAAAY OFF what Jesus actually taught, and my proof of that is the division of your religion... what your religion turns people into... Not in all cases of course, but most

Now you assume I take offence to what you've been saying, I don't... You're free to believe whatever you will...

And of course I am free to do the same, and the above is just MY opinion as you've said... but its also my opinion that what I've said above makes a lot more sense then the silly dancing and cherry picking for bits of info that Christians will do to prove something Jesus never said...

HE never claimed to be God, YOU know this as well as I do... IF you choose to deny it, that is your issue...

YOU know I don't believe the OT to be inspired, or from God... so anything you show me from said books will likely be rejected by me... and I have shown you clearly that the books of the OT are not always correct... which is one of the many reasons why I reject them as being "from God"... to me they're nothing more then a damn good story loosely based around history... full of myth's and legends... and in some cases complete and total fabrication

I personally believe Jesus did not come as a final sin sacrifice as Paul will tell you... you know my feelings about Paul as well... HE came to show the true God to a people who were completely clueless

HE did not come as "GOD in the flesh" as john stated... All the other gospels say he was the SON of GOD

"GOD in the flesh" and people claiming he was actually GOD is only found in John, who by the way was quite prolific in his narration

SO... bottom line as I've stated many times before.... Believe whatever you like...

but remember YOUR god... HAS his own GOD

And it wasn't HIMSELF

a reply to: olaru12

God didn't change His mind. A new interpretation was put forth.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Except Jesus wasn't called any of those titles... not until much later did people start calling him such things...

He was never called Immanuel

OR Father... he actually spoke out against calling people that...

Or Wonderful counselor

OR Mighty God...

Or any of those names Isaiah used... and he certainly did not bring peace

In fact there was nothing but war before and after his life

Actually Jesus brought peace between man and God

Guess you missed that part like the Pharisees did

a reply to: Raggedyman

Did he now...

Unfortunately the history of that area after his death shows nothing of the sort

Interesting theory though, regardless of its validity

a reply to: Akragon

Except it makes complete sense in context of the conversation he was having with the Jews... They said "we are going to stone you for claiming to be God", Jesus said You're going to stone me because I claimed to be the SON of GOD?

what is there left to understand? They said you claimed to be God, HE said NO I claimed to be the SON of GOD... which is not the same as claiming to be GOD... to the Jews it was the same, but that wasn't his claim. Like I said before many times, in Judaism Anything that relates a person to God IS blasphemy... you can't even write the word without it being blasphemy... This whole concept was wrong from the beginning... The SON of GOD, is not the same as GOD

I have never disputed that he claimed to be the Son of God. What I have disputed is your interpretation of that title. Lets take a look at that question closely.

"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,"

Jesus here calls himself the one whom the Father hath sanctified. The word translated sanctified means to be set apart, or to be made holy. Jesus is saying that He is the Anointed One.

Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Then he says, if I am the Anointed One, why is it blasphemy when I say I am the Son of God? His question is not about who they claim he is. His question is about their charge of blasphemy, he is asking why is it Blasphemy for me to say this, watch and see if I do the works of the Father.

SO the options are, HE wasn't actually the messiah as he claimed to be

OR

The bible was WRONG about who the messiah was

OR

You have ignored vital parts of the messianic prophecies. You ignored Daniel 9, in which he says the Anointed One will be cut off and get nothing. You ignored all of Isaiah 53 because it shows that what you are preaching is not the whole story. The Bible wasn't wrong, and Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies perfectly. Isaiah 43 is not a messianic prophecy. Zechariah and Ezekiel are talking about end times events, so they are not meant to have happened yet. Those are things that occur a few years before Christ second coming, in which you will see the Conquering King rather than the Suffering Servant(Isaiah 53 & Daniel 9). Isaiah 2 again is an end time prophecy referencing the Day of the Lord which has not yet happened nor was it supposed to happen with the Suffering Servant, but it is supposed to happen with the Conquering King.

HE Prays to HIS FATHER...

HE says specifically...
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And even after he returns to his followers... what is one of the last things he says in Mathew?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

ALL power is GIVEN to me.... WHO gave him said POWER?

WHO can Give YOUR god "all the power" of heaven and earth?

WHO has that authority?

THE FATHER.... HIS GOD

And I have already explained my position on why this takes place. Philippians 2. One of the members of the Godhead willingly chose to become a servant by taking on the likeness of man. God is love. God exist as one being with three persons, all of which are completely and totally God. Those persons are part of the essence of the being God. If you don't have one of them, then the resulting being is no longer God. In the same way, if you have a shell, a white , and a yolk you have one full egg. Missing any of those parts, and you no longer have a full egg. All of these sections are not contradictory to what I have said. Jesus is one person of the trinity who chose to be subservient to the Father another person in the trinity, and that is why he constantly says things like the Father is greater than He. That is what Jesus's followers taught

but its also my opinion that what I've said above makes a lot more sense then the silly dancing and cherry picking for bits of info that Christians will do to prove something Jesus never said...

I am the one cherry picking? You have already admitted that John 1 claims Jesus is God...and then 9 Chapters later you want to say the Bible is teaching something different. Obviously the writer of John felt Jesus taught that he was God in the flesh.

. In Luke, ADAM was refered to as "the son of God"... was ADAM actually Jesus... Im sure you believe he was, but again that just isn't reality... Only in the Christian world it is reality

The phrase can have multiple meanings depending on the context. No I don't think Adam was Jesus, as far as I know, Mormons and maybe JW are the only ones that believe that. I don't personally know any Christian that believes that. I think what you are referencing is when Paul calls Jesus the last Adam:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

What you are probably missing here is the fact that Paul is a rabbi. He was using a rabbinical argument to justify the redemptive work of Jesus. Leviticus 25 teaches that if a man is in debt, that one of his nearest kin should come and redeem that which he has lost. Here Paul is putting forth the idea that God became man to become one of Adam's next of kin to redeem that which he lost , us and planet earth, for him. First man was made from Earth the second man comes from Heaven. There is an obvious difference those both the first man and the second man can claim god as the direct creator of their physical bodies.

HE never claimed to be God, YOU know this as well as I do... IF you choose to deny it, that is your issue...

No I don't know this, because its not true. John 8:58 he is claiming by mouth to be god you simply choose to remain ignorant of his reference to the name of God in the Old testament. It is a jewish audience and he is making a reference to their scriptures and instead of take the claim for what it is you want to say oh no Jesus was just saying this was not his first incarnation......like that makes no sense. Everything I have said is completely coherent with everything else in the Bible.You have to throw out certain sections to make your ideas fit and then want to pretend that you teaching what the Bible actually says...Also John is not the only one that claimed this Matthew 1:23. Acts 20:28 teaches that God is the one that purchased us with His own blood. Genesis 5 teaches that the blessed god shall come down teaching that his death shall bring the despairing rest. You are simply not being honest with yourself out of pride.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have never disputed that he claimed to be the Son of God. What I have disputed is your interpretation of that title.

THAT... is our whole issue in this and other discussions

YOU believe that GOD is three in one...

Where as I believe in ONE GOD

NOT three in one, or one equals three, or vice versa...

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

According to the bible, what are we created in? God's image. What is God according to the bible? Light. What do we see? An image of light. Let's put two and two together here. What we see is God's image, it is what we are created in. How are we created in it? Look in the mirror to find out.

Gods image does not have 'you' in it.
'You' is the added extra which is not really there.

Look right now at what is appearing - can you see you?

There is just the image of God. As soon as there is the misconception of a 'you' there is conflict. When that illusion is seen through (lifts away/rapture) - there will be no conflict - which is love.

a reply to: Akragon

Yea thats about the only thing I left you to say so it make sense that is the only reply I got.

YOU believe that GOD is three in one...

Where as I believe in ONE GOD

I believe in only one God I just believe his nature to be more complex than you do. Out of your two sentences, one would be a description of his nature the other would be a mathematical description of the number of entities involved. I can describe one entity, an egg, with three parts. What is different about doing that with God, but rather than parts you have three co-eternal minds?

NOT three in one, or one equals three, or vice versa...

No one has said one equals three you simply do not have the eyes to see or ears to hear.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yea thats about the only thing I left you to say so it make sense that is the only reply I got.

Just as your previous reply, I didn't want to spend pages and pages on a reply... with the same old result

I believe in only one God I just believe his nature to be more complex than you do. Out of your two sentences, one would be a description of his nature the other would be a mathematical description of the number of entities involved. I can describe one entity, an egg, with three parts. What is different about doing that with God, but rather than parts you have three co-eternal minds?

No actually... I believe in an infinitely complex creator that can't be described using a book written by men in their arrogance...

I've heard many of the ideas... three states of water... or your egg theory...

You break your god down to what you believe he is... personally I don't even try to understand something that created everything... not just this world, and what we can see

No one has said one equals three you simply do not have the eyes to see or ears to hear.

No one has to... that is a basic description of YOUR trinity...

I could say the same thing for you... blinded by your religion, and choose to follow the words of men rather then the man you call God...

Said trinity is false doctrine... designed by men...

Father or Master...
Son or Apprentice...
Holy Spirit or Craft...