Okay, Which one is correct then?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: In4ormant

The relationship I have with God far exceeds anything I have ever read or studied in the Bible.

See that i can agree with...

Just saying, Jesus didn't ever claim to be God.

Its a fact... no matter how much anyone wants to read into what he said... and THAT is a disgusting translation of the bible in a language no one speaks... And the Aramaic that exists today is nothing like what Jesus spoke

but you are free to believe whatever you wish

He was merely stating that his presence, in the flesh, was not good like God. He didn't want men to believe that the flesh could be as God was.

Thats a very Gnostic statement brother

It's my interpretation. I could be wrong. I wasn't there, I can't say for sure.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: In4ormant

And he talked to God in heaven while on earth. So God did not come in the flesh at all.

"And God can do whatever he wants" doesn't make your argument true it is a blanket statement covering the unbelievable trying to say "it's possible" and is not convincing.

I imagine that your trying to use absolutes. God is in heaven so he can't be on earth and in the flesh at the same time.

I would imagine that omnipotence could solve that conundrum.

It doesn't at all. That is a magic argument to a non conundrum.

Jesus was not omnipotent, he has a God who created him just like us.

And he doesn't know everything God knows.

" Only God knows the times..."

Omnipotent, Omniscient or Omnipresent, Jesus was not.

His powers were hiven to him. You don't read the Bible do you?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: In4ormant

The relationship I have with God far exceeds anything I have ever read or studied in the Bible.

See that i can agree with...

Just saying, Jesus didn't ever claim to be God.

Its a fact... no matter how much anyone wants to read into what he said... and THAT is a disgusting translation of the bible in a language no one speaks... And the Aramaic that exists today is nothing like what Jesus spoke

but you are free to believe whatever you wish

He was merely stating that his presence, in the flesh, was not good like God. He didn't want men to believe that the flesh could be as God was.

Thats a very Gnostic statement brother

It's my interpretation. I could be wrong. I wasn't there, I can't say for sure.

Very true.

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: In4ormant

And he talked to God in heaven while on earth. So God did not come in the flesh at all.

"And God can do whatever he wants" doesn't make your argument true it is a blanket statement covering the unbelievable trying to say "it's possible" and is not convincing.

I imagine that your trying to use absolutes. God is in heaven so he can't be on earth and in the flesh at the same time.

I would imagine that omnipotence could solve that conundrum.

It doesn't at all. That is a magic argument to a non conundrum.

Jesus was not omnipotent, he has a God who created him just like us.

And he doesn't know everything God knows.

" Only God knows the times..."

Omnipotent, Omniscient or Omnipresent, Jesus was not.

His powers were hiven to him. You don't read the Bible do you?

I try to daily. Your interpretation.

originally posted by: forthelove
The funny little bible is full of contradictions, but the one that gets me is as follows:

So tell me which one is correct, huh?

Is it the scripture that suggests, an eye for an eye...

Or is it the one that says, turn the other cheek...

Please explain to me how both seemingly opposite reactions can exist in that good old book?

Are you supposed to decide based on the merits of the situation?

Are you supposed to turn the other cheek and then poke them in the eye?

Are you supposed to blind them and then turn their other cheek?

Old Testament Jewish, laws for Jews and the world, eye for an eye
New Testament, Christian, law for Christians, turn the other cheek

I don't think anyone has ever been taught truth

a reply to: In4ormant

No, a difference exists between interpretation and making it say things it clearly doesn't.

That was just adding your own personal wishes to the narrative or assuming you know things nobody does. Good is what he says and you insert "wholly" mentally but without a good reason to even assume that.

You were born into a world that told you a man was God and believe it despite the fact you can't find that in the Bible or in the Messianic prophecies anywhere.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: forthelove
The funny little bible is full of contradictions, but the one that gets me is as follows:

So tell me which one is correct, huh?

Is it the scripture that suggests, an eye for an eye...

Or is it the one that says, turn the other cheek...

Please explain to me how both seemingly opposite reactions can exist in that good old book?

Are you supposed to decide based on the merits of the situation?

Are you supposed to turn the other cheek and then poke them in the eye?

Are you supposed to blind them and then turn their other cheek?

Old Testament Jewish, laws for Jews and the world, eye for an eye
New Testament, Christian, law for Christians, turn the other cheek

I don't think anyone has ever been taught truth

Including you.

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: In4ormant

No, a difference exists between interpretation and making it say things it clearly doesn't.

That was just adding your own personal wishes to the narrative or assuming you know things nobody does. Good is what he says and you insert "wholly" mentally but without a good reason to even assume that.

You were born into a world that told you a man was God and believe it despite the fact you can't find that in the Bible or in the Messianic prophecies anywhere.

I believe Jesus was God in the same way that when my wife hands me the phone and says it's dad I know the actual phone isn't dad but him speaking through it.

You never asked me to elaborate on what or how I believed what I do.

Interpretation is exactly that.

a reply to: In4ormant

Interpretation is not making it say what you want it to say.

It is finding correct or plausible explanations for different passages.

Interpretation is not a liscence to say "this means he is God."

Find me 1 Messianic prophecy from the OT that says the Messiah will be God (Isaiah and the mistranslated virgin prophecy was never Messianic).

Or a Jew today that believes the Messiah will be God.

Won't happen.

MISinterpretation is constant in Christianity.

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: In4ormant

Interpretation is not making it say what you want it to say.

It is finding correct or plausible explanations for different passages.

Interpretation is not a liscence to say "this means he is God."

Find me 1 Messianic prophecy from the OT that says the Messiah will be God (Isaiah and the mistranslated virgin prophecy was never Messianic).

Or a Jew today that believes the Messiah will be God.

Won't happen.

MISinterpretation is constant in Christianity.

Here you go.

www1.cbn.com...

www.godandscience.org...

I am sure you are smarter and more knowledgeable than these people though.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: In4ormant

Interpretation is not making it say what you want it to say.

It is finding correct or plausible explanations for different passages.

Interpretation is not a liscence to say "this means he is God."

Find me 1 Messianic prophecy from the OT that says the Messiah will be God (Isaiah and the mistranslated virgin prophecy was never Messianic).

Or a Jew today that believes the Messiah will be God.

Won't happen.

MISinterpretation is constant in Christianity.

Here you go.

www1.cbn.com...

www.godandscience.org...

I am sure you are smarter and more knowledgeable than these people though.

I might be what makes them any smarter than me?

Because they agree with you and are on the internet?

Impressive. I got my own sources and don't need to listen to whoever has been giving you information because I prefer the truth.

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

a reply to: In4ormant

You can't provide the prophecy or fulfillment of the (non) prophecy that makes Jesus God and you think that giving me 2 links and making a sarcastic remark is going to distract me from that?

No way.

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: In4ormant

You can't provide the prophecy or fulfillment of the (non) prophecy that makes Jesus God and you think that giving me 2 links and making a sarcastic remark is going to distract me from that?

No way.

I gave you a link that goes into detail giving you the information you requested. You not wanting to read it or believe it is up to you.

originally posted by: In4ormant
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Hate to say it brother...

but that "prophecy" falls utterly short...

Jesus wasn't called any of those things.... Ever

Nor did any government rest on his shoulders

originally posted by: In4ormant
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

I already told you that is not messianic prophecy that if it was CALLED is different from WILL BE.

What government rests on his shoulders?

And are you saying that the Son is now the Father? Because now you are just getting desperate.

Isaiah 9:7 His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne and kingdom of David

Where is the endless peace for the Jews that this prophecy speaks of?

This prophecy is retroactively referring to King David.

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

I already told you that is not messianic prophecy that if it was CALLED is different from WILL BE.

What government rests on his shoulders?

And are you saying that the Son is now the Father? Because now you are just getting desperate.

He full filled many Messianic prophecies and it was clear the Messiah would be God.

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

I already told you that is not messianic prophecy that if it was CALLED is different from WILL BE.

What government rests on his shoulders?

And are you saying that the Son is now the Father? Because now you are just getting desperate.

All the governments of the Earth will rest on his shoulders when He returns to rule and reign. He will destroy all the governments of mankind and His kingdom will take over the entire Earth.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

I already told you that is not messianic prophecy that if it was CALLED is different from WILL BE.

What government rests on his shoulders?

And are you saying that the Son is now the Father? Because now you are just getting desperate.

He full filled many Messianic prophecies and it was clear the Messiah would be God.

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

And that passage is one of the reasons the Jews rejected him...

and still do to this day

a reply to: In4ormant

nonr of that says anything about the Messiah being God and he didn't fulfill ANY of the Messianic prophecies.

Do you even know what the Jewish version of Messiah is?

It is the return to the Kingdom of David/Solomon and the man who accomplishes that is the Messiah.