Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?
Comments
-
Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit. They are NOT the same. We disagree. The difference is that in my last post I provided an argument for my view that was rooted in nine Scripture verses/passages. At most, you have cited a single passage, one whose relevance and probity in this issue my post brought into serious doubt.
I commented directly on your one passage. Please comment directly on each of my nine passages.
I only need one scripture.
I answer all your questions and show you the truth.
Jesus is the Spirit and the Bible says so.
The Bible plainly says Jesus is the Spirit.
There is one Holy Spirit. As I have argued, and as I think is backed up in the texts I cited, "the Spirit of Jesus" is NOT the same as the Holy Spirit. There is NO text that equates them. In fact, Peter says God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit, which makes the distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit obvious (God did not anoint Jesus with himself).
There is only one Spirit and Jesus' Spirit is that one Spirit. Jesus' Spirit is the Father's Spirit. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. What do you think Jesus' Spirit is then?
I prefer to use bullets, so I will continue to do so, but negating their interference with your posting is simple: Mouse-select the bulleted points, then from the formatting menu items found to the left of the selected texted click on the paragraph icon, which looks like a reverse, double-lined "P." Doing so will convert the bullet points into conventional paragraph text.
I tried many ways to get rid of it why don't you try?
You claim there are "Scriptures" (plural) that say Jesus raised himself. I say there is AT BEST one such text, and that text doesn't really really assert that Jesus raised himself. Please cite the other text(s) which you claim say Jesus raised himself.
I accept and respect as your personal faith claim your assertion that Jesus and God are "ONE AND THE SAME." But I also accept it as a claim that is without biblical foundation.
I only need one scripture.
I prove everything with the Bible.
God raised Jesus from the dead.
Acts 2:32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
The Father raised him.
Jesus raised himself.
John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
The Holy Spirit raised Jesus.
Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
(Jesus was made alive by the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is his Spirit.)
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (2010)
1 Peter 3:18 Because The Messiah also died once for the sake of our sins, The Righteous One in the place of sinners, to bring you to God, and he died in body and lived in his Spirit.
Some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus. Some scriptures say Jesus raised himself. Some scriptures say the Spirit raised Jesus. So who raised Jesus? Which one raised Jesus? They are all the same one and only Spirit.
-
Again a logic issue: My heart is in me. My lungs are in me. Therefore, my heart and lungs must be the same. Obviously not. I have God in me and I have Jesus in me. Two distinct spirits.
You are illogical, for the Bible says when you receive the Holy Spirit, you receive the Father and Jesus.
This confirms that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same.No. The Titus text proves Jesus and the Holy Spirit are NOT the same. The words of the text are clear: Jesus is the one THROUGH WHOM God pours out the spirit. When I pour water into a glass through a filter, I am NOT saying the filter is the water. That THROUGH WHICH the Spirit flows cannot be the Spirit.
You should only stick with analogies that are in the Bible, because yours are silly.
You thought you gave scripture that show Jesus is not the same as the Holy Spirit.
I gave you scripture that show they are the same.
I accept and respect these as your faith claims.
I think I am causing you problems for your false beliefs.
I asked for the verse(s) in which Jesus is "called" (your word) "redeemer" and "the Holy One of Israel." Please cite those erses.
If God doesn't want you to see it then that is the way it is.
If God doesn't want you to see it then that is the way it is.
Now THAT'S a "cop out."
It is true. Jesus tells us who and why he reveals to some and not others.
-
Why then do you not tell us where I supposedly asked that ??????
Your recent replies in this thread/topic give the impression of a little boy who thinks he can somehow convince an adult by repeating a point and claim that has been shown over and over to be wrong.
Why do you not answer in detail to the questions you are asked? Is it because an answer would quickly show that your initial claim is incorrect?
In two recent posts you wrote
If God doesn't want you to see it then that is the way it is.
I suggest, you first have a good look in the mirror and tell yourself what you address to others !!!
-
You have too many mental problems for me to discuss with you further. By the way, are you also Bill?
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
I only need one scripture.
I answer all your questions and show you the truth.
Jesus is the Spirit and the Bible says so.
The Bible plainly says Jesus is the Spirit.
These four lines display the core weakness of both your position and your approach to debating issues.
- You need only one Scripture - No, you need more than one, otherwise, for example, you risk accepting Jeremiah 15.1-9 as God's view toward Judah: "Then the LORD said to me, “Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me pleading for these people, I wouldn’t help them. Away with them! Get them out of my sight! 2 And if they say to you, ‘But where can we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the LORD says: “ ‘Those who are destined for death, to death; those who are destined for war, to war; those who are destined for famine, to famine; those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.’ 3 “I will send four kinds of destroyers against them,” says the LORD. “I will send the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, the vultures to devour, and the wild animals to finish up what is left. 4 Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 5 “Who will feel sorry for you, Jerusalem? Who will weep for you? Who will even bother to ask how you are? 6 You have abandoned me and turned your back on me,” says the LORD. “Therefore, I will raise my fist to destroy you. I am tired of always giving you another chance. 7 I will winnow you like grain at the gates of your cities and take away the children you hold dear. I will destroy my own people, because they refuse to change their evil ways. 8 There will be more widows than the grains of sand on the seashore. At noontime I will bring a destroyer against the mothers of young men. I will cause anguish and terror to come upon them suddenly. 9 The mother of seven grows faint and gasps for breath; her sun has gone down while it is still day. She sits childless now, disgraced and humiliated. And I will hand over those who are left to be killed by the enemy. I, the LORD, have spoken!”
Is that in fact what happened? Did God destroy God's own people, handing over those who survived initial waves of attacks to be killed by the enemy? No, but you wouldn't know that unless you believed you needed more than one Scripture.
- You've answered all my questions and shown me the truth - No, you've chosen not to address many of my questions, including my requests that you directly engage the texts upon which I base my posts. As for the "truth," you've shown me YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the truth - an understanding to which you're obviously entitled - but you have NOT shown me THE truth.
What does it mean when people involved in forum discussions choose not to respond to others' questions? In my experience, it usually means they don't have answers, and aren't willing to acknowledge the weakness of their arguments that truthful answers to those questions would reveal.
- Jesus is the spirit and the Bible says so - In your view, he is. In my view, he isn't.
- The Bible plainly says Jesus is the Spirit - In your view it does. In my view, it doesn't.
There is only one Spirit and Jesus' Spirit is that one Spirit. Jesus' Spirit is the Father's Spirit. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. What do you think Jesus' Spirit is then?
There is no scriptural foundation for your claim that "Jesus' Spirit is the Father's Spirit."
The whole of the NT's witness - that is, more than one Scripture - is clearly that Jesus' spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit.
I made my view of Jesus' spirit clear in a previous post. My view hasn't changed.
I tried many ways to get rid of it why don't you try?
I don't try to get rid of bullet points because there are times when I find bullet points helpful to the presentation of my posts. You, on the other hand, don't try to use bullet points, among other reasons, I presume, because you don't find them helpful to the presentation of your posts. I respect your choice. I'm confident that the process of converting bullet points to paragraph text that I outlined in my previous post removes any significant impediments such bullets create.
I only need one scripture.
I prove everything with the Bible.
In my view, there are many more assertions that are proven with MORE than one Scripture than are proven with only one.
God raised Jesus from the dead.
We agree.
"God the Father" raised Jesus (Galatians 1.1), and God, "the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," through "the incredible greatness of God's power," "raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God's right hand" (Ephesians 1,17,20). So Christ sits are God's right hand. Yes, and in so sitting, makes clear the distinction between Jesus and God.
Jesus raised himself.
No.
In John 10.18, Jesus says God, whom he calls "Father," has given him the "authority" to lay down and take up his life. In my view, it can't be said that he raised himself when he needed authority to do so. I think the verse means he believes he is called to sacrifice his life (to lay it down) , and that he is certain that his physical death will not mean the end of his life (to pick it back up again). The fact that he acts on God's command and not his own, and needs God's authority for the action, means it is God who raised him, not he himself. Looked at another way, the fact that his life is available for him to pick back up after he lays it down in the crucifixion strongly suggests another's involvement. In my view, God made sure his life was still there for him to pick up.
In John, Jesus speaks as one who has authority and a command from God to lay down his life and pick it back up again. John 2.19, in which Jesus declares his intention to raise up the temple, must be seen in that regard.
Jesus' claim to be "the resurrection and the life" is not evidence that he raised himself. It is rather evidence that God's gift of eternal life flows through him (Jesus).
The Holy Spirit raised Jesus.
- Notice that in Romans 8.11, it is NOT the "Spirit" who raises Jesus; it is God. The verse refers to the spirit of "him who raised Jesus from the dead" (ESV). Grammatically, of course, the one who raised Jesus in such a sentence construction is whomever "him" and, later in the verse, "he" refer to. To our benefit, Romans 8.11 tells us to whom those pronouns refer: God ("Just as God raised Christ Jesus from the dead...."). So the message of Romans 8.11 relevant to our exchange is that God is the one who raised Jesus, and if God's Spirit - i.e. the Spirit of "him who raised Jesus from the dead" - lives within us, God will bring life to us, as well, through God's Spirit.
Bottom Line: The interpretation of Romans 8.11 that is most generous to your point of view is that God raised Jesus through God's Spirit... which in the verse's context is the same as saying God raised Jesus.
- There is no indication in 1 Peter that the "Spirit" the author references in 1 Peter 3.18 is anything other than a manifestation or presence of God. In 1 Peter 1.2, God makes people holy by God's spirit. In 1 Peter 3.14, the writer tells his readers that "the glorious Spirit of God rests upon you." "The Spirit" is simply a manifestation of God, the mechanism through which Peter understands God to work.
(Jesus was made alive by the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is his Spirit.)
I accept and respect this as your faith claim, but there is no biblical warrant for it.
Some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus. Some scriptures say Jesus raised himself. Some scriptures say the Spirit raised Jesus. So who raised Jesus? Which one raised Jesus? They are all the same one and only Spirit.
They CANNOT be the same since Jesus is NOT God.
Who raised Jesus? God.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
You have too many mental problems for me to discuss with you further. By the way, are you also Bill?
I'm not Wolfgang (though I don't know whether he's me 😳), but this post of yours prompts my response.
How are allegations of other posters' "mental problems" in ANY way appropriate in an online Christian forum whose organizing principles include direction to posters to "be respectful" of each other, to "criticize ideas, not people," and to avoid "ad hominem attacks"?
-
@YourTruthGod wrote:
You have too many mental problems for me to discuss with you further. By the way, are you also Bill?
And you wonder why many people get upset with you ????????
-
Just look at how you have been speaking to me. As for mental problems, some people have them, and? Is it wrong to tell you?
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote:
How can Jesus not be God ?
@Wolfgang you are asking the wrong question .... Rather, one should ask how can a man - Jesus of Nazareth - be God?? The answer is very simple, He can't be God! The true God is only ONE, not two, not three. not four or more.
What truthful words of Jesus are believable ? Faith belief "Rather, one should ask how can a man - Jesus of Nazareth - be God?? The answer is very simple, He can't be God!" implies a number of truthful words spoken by Lord God Jesus can't be believed (hinders Words of Christ dwelling richly).
Jesus experienced God's Glory and Love when the only Spiritual Being in existence was One True God. John 17:5 in LEB has footnote: 'Literally "by the side of yourself"' that humanly is challenging to describe "side" in the Spiritual realm as the physical world had not yet been created by God.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Repeating follow-up question: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?" (John 12:44-50 Jesus chose to obey The Father)
@Bill_Coley I'll address your question as soon as you address my question, the one I now ask a third time: If Jesus was God, wouldn't he have known about all seeds, or do you claim that as God he was not as omniscient as the God he addressed as "Father"?
My answer to your question is my question. Jesus chose to obey God The Father by speaking God's words given to Jesus, enabling humans to hear/obey words of Jesus to do God The Father's will. Hence, relevant question is: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?"
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Two become One in marriage. Looking forward for me being part of the bride becoming One in Lord God Jesus during Heavenly Holy matrimony:
@Bill_Coley Your response here in no material way responds to the core of my claim that according to the words Jesus uses in John 17.21, he believes his followers are capable of the same kind of oneness he claims with his Father, an observation which leads to the conclusion that for Jesus, being "one" with does NOT mean being the same as (to your point: Two people who marry become "one" in an important sense, but they remain two individual people and children of God; marriage does not and cannot make them the same as each other.)
In how many life domains should two in marriage become one ? Spiritual, Emotional, Mental, Social, Functional/Physical ? Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for her; in order that he might sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word; in order that he might present to himself the church glorious, not having a spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she may be holy and blameless. Thus also husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. The one who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as also Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.) Only you also, each one of you, must thus love his own wife as himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33 (LEB)
Jesus has an eternal identity (voice & mind) distinct from The Father while being One God Spiritually (includes being Unified in all life domains)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Puzzled by human reasoning about God's prophetic timing that concludes "most likely someone of his day", which is not what the text says. One True Lord God's timing perspective: 1 day is as 1,000 years and 1,000 years is as 1 day.
@Bill_Coley Yes, Peter compares a day to a thousand years as he explains what his readers might interpret as the Lord's delay, but there is no such interpretive framework in Jeremiah 23. Jeremiah 23.1-4 CLEARLY refers to shepherds of the prophet's day:
* "...they have destroyed and scattered the very ones they were expected to care for" (Jer 23.1)
* they "have deserted [the shepherds' human flocks] and driven them to destruction (Jer 23.2)
@Bill_Coley Those are both references to events in the prophet's time.
Puzzled by "in the prophet's time" being based on the helping verb have for English perfect tense (action done in the past with ongoing effect).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Context is every word having meaning in a sentence, paragraph, larger unit. Faith assumption "a return home to the exiles of the prophet's day" simply disagrees with what the text says God commanded Jeremiah about weeping: You must not weep for the dead person, and you must not show sympathy for him. Weep bitterly for the one who goes away, for he will not return, or see the land of his birth again. Jeremiah 22:10 (LEB)
@Bill_Coley And in Jer 23.11, the LEB identifies "the one who goes away" as Shallum - another name for Jehoahaz - "the son of Josiah, the king of Judah" in the prophet's day.
Jeremiah 22 begins with Lord God's message to the house of the King of Judah, which switches focus to Jerusalem: And many nations will pass by this city and they will say each one to his neighbor, ‘Why has Yahweh done in this manner to this great city?’ Then they will answer, ‘Because they abandoned the covenant of Yahweh their God, and bowed down in worship to other gods, and served them.’ ” You must not weep for the dead person, and you must not show sympathy for him. Weep bitterly for the one who goes away, for he will not return, or see the land of his birth again. Jeremiah 22:8-10 (LEB) followed by proclamations about three individuals in the house of the King of Judah. Notice plural pronoun they: As for the land to which they are longing to return, they will not return. Jeremiah 22:27 (LEB) so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jeremiah 32 includes a faithful promise from One God about future property being owned by Israelites in the land that God promised to Israel.
@Bill_Coley There is nothing in Jer 32 to suggest the exiles will have to wait 600 years for the fulfillment of the prophet's predictions. In fact, in more than one location, Jeremiah says their confinement away from their homeland will last 70 years, not 600 (Jer 25.11; 29.10)
Concur God did not give words to Jeremiah about how many years for future fulfillment of Jeremiah 23:5-6 while in the prophet's day had nobody righteous on the throne of King David. In fact, Jeremiah 22 ends with a curse: Thus says Yahweh: “Record this man as childless, a man who will not succeed in his days, for no man from his offspring will succeed him, sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.” Jeremiah 22:30 (LEB), who is left out of the Matthew 1:1 lineage of Joseph. During 70 years of Babylonian captivity, God gave 70 weeks of years timing prophecy to Daniel.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Logos Bible Software search: God WITHIN {Headword ἀνήρ} found a number of lexicon entries. The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament was published in 1990 that has six definitions with the sixth definition being: "In accordance
@Bill_Coley I welcome the assistance of your Logos search, but what matters is what Peter and Paul meant when they used the word "man" to describe Jesus. In my view, there is no sense in their writings that they meant "man" to mean anything other than a male human being.
Concur Peter and Paul used the word "man" ἀνήρ to describe the adult male human physical body of Jesus (does not describe spirit inside body).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) Greek New Testament has a paragraph of Acts 2.22-28 that includes David describing the Lord, Holy One of God who went into Hades (so Lord is Jesus, who died physically while having an eternal spirit that cannot die so was not abandoned to Hades). Greek word ἀνήρ describes adult male body, consistent with John 1:14 And The Word (eternally being God as stated in John 1:1) became flesh ...
@Bill_Coley I agree that Jesus' spirit didn't die, just as your and my spirits won't die. More relevant to our discussion is the fact that Peter says Jesus was a "man" God "endorsed" by doing great things "through him" (Acts 2.22), whom the Jews killed on a cross (Acts 2.23), and whom God "raised...back to life" (Acts 2.24). Where in THAT TEXT do you find support for your view that Jesus was God?
SBLGNT paragraph of Acts 2.22-28 shows first sentence ends in the middle of Acts 2.22 while the second sentence ends in Acts 2.25 (has a colon at the end of Acts 2.24), which begins with Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Acts 2.22 (SBLGNT), literally 'Jesus the Nazarene, man declared from the God ...' NIDNTTE article about the preposition ἀπὸ begins: "The earliest attested function of ἀπό—and indeed the most common—is to indicate the starting point of physical movement, ..." that is consistent with Jesus (Word of God) leaving His Heavenly Throne being sent from God to dwell in a male human body, which could be freely offered as a Holy substitutionay sin sacrifice (to do God's Will).
Human example of one sent being the one sending: for the funeral of Shimon Perez in Jerusalem on 30 Sep 2016, President Obama chose President Obama to diplomatically represent the United States (along with speaking during the funeral).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus First principle of Celebrate Recovery keeps coming to me: "Realize I'm not God. I admit I am powerless to control my tendency to do the wrong thing and that my life is unmanageable. (Step 1)" Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3 (LEB)
@Bill_Coley I don't see how this response in any material way engages the question I asked, so I ask it again: Please comment on the logic of my analysis of religious leaders' indictments against Jesus: If I believe you claim to be God, does that necessarily mean I am CORRECT that you claim to be God? Or is it possible that I could be WRONG to believe you claim to be God?
Apologies for me not being able to comment on your logic due to me being human, not God (so would be sin for me to claim to be God = a lie).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Belief assumption "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." corollary is "You have yet to cite a verse in which Jesus claims to be God... because no such verse exists." so the conclusion that no verse appears accords with belief assumption "My claim instead is that he failed EVER to CLAIM to be God." (not in the text). Solid exegesis approach is being aware of our own assumptions when approaching Scripture text along with asking God to help us clearly see what the text says (instead of seeing our own assumptions as what the text "clearly" says, which is eisegesis).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Another example of belief assumption being more important than what the text says is the pre-existence of Jesus. How can Jesus not be God ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jesus experienced God's Glory and Love when the only Spiritual Being in existence was One True God. John 17:5 in LEB has footnote: 'Literally "by the side of yourself"' that humanly is challenging to describe "side" in the Spiritual realm as the physical world had not yet been created by God.
@Bill_Coley John 17.5 is NOT example of a verse in which Jesus declared himself to be God. I again assert such verses do not exist. Were they to exist, you wouldn't have to rely on an LEB translation footnote to make your case for their existence.
Please answer the existence question: "How can Jesus not be God ?" that really has three choices to consider: 1) God The Father and Jesus are two completely distinct spiritual entities OR 2) unified spiritually in One God while having eternally distinct voices OR 3) Jesus lied (so cannot be God).
FYI: learning to read Greek can provide new meaning to the phrase: "That's Greek to me" as can read parts of the Greek New Testament while other parts are "Greek to me" (e.g. missed genitive absolute written by Matthew during a Koine Greek language entrance exam for a seminary).
@Bill_Coley I claim that Jesus never claimed to be God. Until you cite one or more verses in which he did so, your "belief assumption" memes will continue to be irrelevant distractions from the crux of our discussion. The fact that after all the interactions you and I have had over the last many months you have YET to cite verses that disprove my "belief assumption"-marred claim provides strong evidence of its accuracy.
Humans can be incredibly stubborn (full of pride) so an alternate explanation for "claim that Jesus never claimed to be God" is consistent with what Jesus said: "If I tell you, you will never believe" Luke 22:67 (LEB), audience was religious lawyers & judges with many, many years of study.
Conversely none of the commentary you have provided has any reason for me to doubt my friend, Lord God Jesus Christ, King of Righteousness, who loves and worships God The Father. Thankful for my worship & praise of One God: at times to individual voice(s) & at times all to One God.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful for this thread discussion as learning for me has included Jesus worshiping The Father as God so the plural unified God's commUnity of Love includes worship between three voices that share One name: 'the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' Matthew 28:19
@Bill_Coley Jesus told Mary to tell the disciples that he was ascending to the one who was both his own and their God and Father (John 20.17); he said nothing to her about his worshiping the one who was his own and their God and Father. Hence, your response here fails to engage my question: If Jesus believed himself to be God, why did he tell his disciples that he was ascending to the one who was his and their God? How could one who was God ascend to his (and their) God, to his (and their) Father? Please engage this question directly.
Embedded in expected answer for question is belief assumption being validated. My previous & current answers reflect my belief assumption of One God being literally true. Looking forward to being in bride of The Lamb so can join The Lamb (Word of God) in worshipping God The Father. Thankful for The Word of God spiritual portion in YHWH choosing to leave His Holy Throne at the side of God The Father in heaven to dwell inside an adult male body for ultimate worship => Holy, unblemished sin sacrifice for God's loving redemption of any human who really, really wants to Love God first with everything. Thankful for my ongoing redemption by the blood of Jesus that enables my choice to Love God first to experience God's Holy presence, which is beyond words to describe: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If "At NO TIME in his engagement with the Sanhedrin does Jesus claim to be God" is valid, then the Sanhedrin had no Jewish legal religious reason (according to the Books of Moses) for having Jesus put to death because of what Jesus said, which is clearly contrary to what the text says.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus The text of Jesus saying to the Sanhedrin: "If I tell you, you will never believe ..." simply disagrees with "they BELIEVED Jesus claimed to be God ...".
@Bill_Coley The question to which Jesus answered "If I tell you..." asked whether Jesus was "the Messiah," NOT whether he was God (Luke 22.67).
Disappointing study result as Messiah question reflects Lord God's covenant to David about one descendant (a son) that rules forever, only God is eternal. It happened that the king settled in his house. (Now Yahweh had given rest to him from all his enemies all around.) And the king said to Nathan the prophet, “Look, please, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God is staying in the middle of the tent.” Nathan said to the king, “Go and do all that is in your heart, for Yahweh is with you.” But it happened that night, the word of Yahweh came to Nathan, saying, “Go and tell my servant David, ‘Thus says Yahweh: “Are you the one to build for me a house for my dwelling? For I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought up the Israelites from Egypt until this day; rather, I was going about in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all of my going about among all the Israelites, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why did you not build me a cedar house?’ ” ’ So then, thus you shall say to my servant David, ‘Thus says Yahweh of hosts, “I took you from the pasture from following the sheep to be a leader over my people, over Israel, and I have been with you everywhere you went. I have cut off all of your enemies from in front of you, and I will make a great name for you, as the name of the great ones who are on the earth. I will make a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them so that they can dwell in their own place. They will not tremble any longer, and the children of wickedness will not afflict them again, as in the former days. In the manner that I appointed judges over my people Israel, I will give you rest from all your enemies. And Yahweh declares to you that Yahweh will build a house for you. When your days are full and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you who will go out from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son for me, whom I will punish when he does wrong, with a rod of men and with blows of human beings. But my loyal love shall not depart from him as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before you; your throne shall be established forever.” ’ ” 2 Samuel 7:1-16 (LEB)
Father and Son prophecy is in Psalm 2:7. Jesus asked religious lawyers and judges about the true meaning of Psalm 110 several times.
If Jesus is Lord God, would He be righteously angry with belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." ? Psalm 2:12
@Bill_Coley AND YET AGAIN, I remind you that just because religious leaders BELIEVED Jesus claimed to be God - and therefore may have had a "Jewish legal religious reason" for killing him - DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN Jesus actually DID claim to be God. At some point, PLEASE, directly address the logic of my claim: If I believe you CLAIM to be God, does that necessarily mean you in fact DO claim to be God, or is it possible that I could be MISTAKEN in my belief that you claim to be God? PLEASE address that question directly; I've raised it to you several times in the course of our exchanges and you've failed ever to engage it.
And yet again, your "BELIEVED" claim simply disagrees with truthful words of Jesus, which is really sad that years of Scripture study resulted in refusal to believe in Jesus as God. Considering intensity of human belief, am amazed that Sanhedrin religious leaders understood what Jesus said.
Thankful to be poor in my human spirit to be in the Kingdom of Heaven. My prayerful attempts to address logic of claim keeps reminding me about not being God so will never directly engage question due to my Love and Worship of the True plural unified God. Jesus is my Lord God, as is Abba, Father, Daddy, Poppa being my Lord God, along with Breath The Holy being my Lord God, reflecting One singular name in Matthew 28:19
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please explain in the text reaction by religious lawyers and judges in the Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court) to Jesus truthfully saying "I AM" as part of a sentence, which answered the question: “Are you then the Son of God?”. In the text from the Books of Moses, please explain Jewish legal reason for wanting Jesus put to death (religious lawyers and judges wanted to avoid appearance of violating God's command against murder).
@Bill_Coley In Luke 22, religious leaders ask Jesus whether he is "the Messiah" (Luke 22.67). Jesus tells them they won't believe or answer him, and that the Son of Man will be seated at God's right hand (Luke 22.67-69). The leaders then shout, "So are you claiming to be the Son of God?" Jesus says "You say that I am." (Luke 22.70; THAT IS: "You say that I am...the Son of God.") Then the leaders respond that they heard him say it (Luke 22.71). What they heard him say was about his being the Messiah and the Son of God, NOT about his being God.
Puzzled by belief assumption being unable to explain what the text says. The Son of Man will be seated at God's right hand is truthfully consistent with John 17:5 (God's Glory before the world existed) as Jesus returned (ascended) to The Father's side to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Son of God question asks about being a descendant of David (reflecting study of God's covenant to David in 2 Samuel 7:1-16).
@Bill_Coley Please respond to my critique of your argument that religious leaders had a "Jewish legal religious reason" to kill Jesus: That religious leaders BELIEVED Jesus claimed to be God - and therefore may have had a "Jewish legal religious reason" for killing him - DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN Jesus actually DID claim to be God. The fact that I claim 1+1=17 DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN 1+1=17. I might be MISTAKEN when I claim 1+1=17. Isn't it true that just because those leaders BELIEVED Jesus claimed to be God DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN they were CORRECT?
Critique rationale is a conflict resolution deception that shows belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." is more important than what the text truly says. With God The Father's words, Jesus (Word of God) declared the Sanhedrin Jewish religious leaders and judges would NEVER BELIEVE. Suspect Sanhedrin religious leaders valued their own self-righteousness and power more than loving God first (even though daily habits said Deuteronomy 6:4-9 at least twice, but the text words had become vain repetition with their hearts far from God).
In an education setting that recognizes assumption of 0=1 being faulty, the claim 1+1=17 would receive a failing grade. In a place where 0=1 is ok, then what is truth ?
@YourTruthGod YOU ARE ONLY GIVEN ONE SPIRIT when you are saved, BUT WHEN YOU ARE SAVED, YOU HAVE THE FATHER AND JESUS LIVING IN YOU>
@Bill_Coley Again a logic issue: My heart is in me. My lungs are in me. Therefore, my heart and lungs must be the same. Obviously not. I have God in me and I have Jesus in me. Two distinct spirits.
Curious about answer(s) provided by the two distinct spirits: Has Jesus Christ (The Messiah) come in the flesh ? (1 John 4.2 & 2 John 7)
Thankful for one plural unified God having distinct voices while spiritually always being One God who was, who is, & who is coming.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
Just look at how you have been speaking to me. As for mental problems, some people have them, and? Is it wrong to tell you?
Allegations that "some people" - especially fellow posters - have "mental problems" are not matters discussed in online Christian forums whose organizing principles, as do CD's, direct posters to "be respectful" of each other, to "criticize ideas, not people," and to avoid "ad hominem attacks."
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
My answer to your question is my question. Jesus chose to obey God The Father by speaking God's words given to Jesus, enabling humans to hear/obey words of Jesus to do God The Father's will. Hence, relevant question is: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?"
So in your view, God is responsible for the fact that Jesus inaccurately called the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds on earth?
I'm raising a factual issue here, not an interpretive one. The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact. It's the assertion, not the broader parable, I asked you about.
In how many life domains should two in marriage become one ? Spiritual, Emotional, Mental, Social, Functional/Physical ? ... Jesus has an eternal identity (voice & mind) distinct from The Father while being One God Spiritually (includes being Unified in all life domains)
Yet again your response fails to engage - or even mention - the John 17 text to which I called your attention, and on which I asked for your comment, the text in which Jesus defines what he means when he says he and God are "one."
Puzzled by "in the prophet's time" being based on the helping verb have for English perfect tense (action done in the past with ongoing effect).
Exactly my point. When Jeremiah reports that shepherds "have" destroyed and "have" scattered, and "have" deserted, he's describing actions that were done in the past - i.e. in his time or earlier. Their "ongoing effect" in the prophet's work is that they help shape God's current and planned responses.
Jeremiah 22 begins with Lord God's message to the house of the King of Judah, which switches focus to Jerusalem... followed by proclamations about three individuals in the house of the King of Judah. Notice plural pronoun they: As for the land to which they are longing to return, they will not return. Jeremiah 22:27 (LEB) so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
Jerusalem was part of Judah.
My previous post referenced Jer 23.11, when, as you likely noticed, it's Jer 22.11 that defines Jehoahaz as the one who went away and never returned. My mistake.
Your response fails to engage the substance of my previous, typo-infected, post: That the text you cited from Jeremiah 22 is clearly about events in the prophet's time, as Jer 22.11 demonstrates.
Concur God did not give words to Jeremiah about how many years for future fulfillment of Jeremiah 23:5-6 while in the prophet's day had nobody righteous on the throne of King David. In fact, Jeremiah 22 ends with a curse: Thus says Yahweh: “Record this man as childless, a man who will not succeed in his days, for no man from his offspring will succeed him, sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.” Jeremiah 22:30 (LEB), who is left out of the Matthew 1:1 lineage of Joseph. During 70 years of Babylonian captivity, God gave 70 weeks of years timing prophecy to Daniel.
God doesn't give Jeremiah a number of years, but he does give the prophet a descriptive frame of reference, in Jer 23.8: Instead, they will say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the people of Israel back to their own land from the land of the north and from all the countries to which he had exiled them.’ Then they will live in their own land.” The prophet's clearly talking about the return of the exiles from Babylon, which of course happened within 70 years... during or shortly after the prophet's time.
Concur Peter and Paul used the word "man" ἀνήρ to describe the adult male human physical body of Jesus (does not describe spirit inside body).
Common ground is good.
SBLGNT paragraph of Acts 2.22-28 shows first sentence ends in the middle of Acts 2.22 while the second sentence ends in Acts 2.25 (has a colon at the end of Acts 2.24), which begins with Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Acts 2.22 (SBLGNT), literally 'Jesus the Nazarene, man declared from the God ...' NIDNTTE article about the preposition ἀπὸ begins: "The earliest attested function of ἀπό—and indeed the most common—is to indicate the starting point of physical movement, ..." that is consistent with Jesus (Word of God) leaving His Heavenly Throne being sent from God to dwell in a male human body, which could be freely offered as a Holy substitutionay sin sacrifice (to do God's Will).
Nothing in the SBLGNT reference you cite changes the unambiguous meaning of the Acts 2 passage, which is that God approved, authorized, and sent the human being named Jesus to do great things, to die, and then to be raised from the dead by God.
Human example of one sent being the one sending: for the funeral of Shimon Perez in Jerusalem on 30 Sep 2016, President Obama chose President Obama to diplomatically represent the United States (along with speaking during the funeral).
At issue in our discussion is not whether President Obama is President Obama, or God is God, or Jesus is Jesus. At issue is whether Jesus is God. You say he is. I say he isn't. The fact that President Obama is President Obama is of no consequence to our disagreement.
Apologies for me not being able to comment on your logic due to me being human, not God (so would be sin for me to claim to be God = a lie).
The question I asked did not require you to claim to be God; it asked you to confirm the very human logic of this statement: Just because religious leaders BELIEVED Jesus claimed to God DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN Jesus ACTUALLY claimed to be God. Yes, it's POSSIBLE they were correct in their belief, but the fact that they claimed it does NOT necessarily mean they were right. In fact, it is POSSIBLE they were MISTAKEN.
You don't have to be God, or claim to be God, in order to confirm the obvious truth of that statement. Religious leaders' BELIEFS were NOT, in and of themselves, PROOF that Jesus was God. The COULD HAVE BEEN mistaken.
Please answer the existence question: "How can Jesus not be God ?" that really has three choices to consider: 1) God The Father and Jesus are two completely distinct spiritual entities OR 2) unified spiritually in One God while having eternally distinct voices OR 3) Jesus lied (so cannot be God).
In my view, the clear witness of the New Testament is that God and Jesus are completely distinct spiritual entities, Jesus having been a human being.
Humans can be incredibly stubborn (full of pride) so an alternate explanation for "claim that Jesus never claimed to be God" is consistent with what Jesus said: "If I tell you, you will never believe" Luke 22:67 (LEB), audience was religious lawyers & judges with many, many years of study.
Your thinly-veiled commentary on my alleged stubbornness and pride does nothing to advance our discussion, and of course does nothing to provide one or more texts that declare Jesus to be God. The fact that you respond with comments about my character to my noting your failure ever to cite such a verse is telling.
Conversely none of the commentary you have provided has any reason for me to doubt my friend, Lord God Jesus Christ, King of Righteousness, who loves and worships God The Father. Thankful for my worship & praise of One God: at times to individual voice(s) & at times all to One God.
I respect and celebrate your faith.
Embedded in expected answer for question is belief assumption being validated. My previous & current answers reflect my belief assumption of One God being literally true. Looking forward to being in bride of The Lamb so can join The Lamb (Word of God) in worshipping God The Father. Thankful for The Word of God spiritual portion in YHWH choosing to leave His Holy Throne at the side of God The Father in heaven to dwell inside an adult male body for ultimate worship => Holy, unblemished sin sacrifice for God's loving redemption of any human who really, really wants to Love God first with everything. Thankful for my ongoing redemption by the blood of Jesus that enables my choice to Love God first to experience God's Holy presence, which is beyond words to describe: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control.
And yet again you choose not to address directly a question I asked, so I ask it yet again: If Jesus believed himself to be God, why did he tell his disciples that he was ascending to the one who was his and their God? How could one who was God ascend to his (and their) God, to his (and their) Father? Please engage this question directly.
Disappointing study result as Messiah question reflects Lord God's covenant to David about one descendant (a son) that rules forever, only God is eternal.... 2 Samuel 7:1-16 (LEB)
Father and Son prophecy is in Psalm 2:7. Jesus asked religious lawyers and judges about the true meaning of Psalm 110 several times.
If Jesus is Lord God, would He be righteously angry with belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." ? Psalm 2:12
Your response here doesn't mention, let alone engage, the portion of my previous post to which it claims to respond - that in Luke 22.67, when Jesus says "If I tell you, you will not believe me..." he answers a question about his being "the Messiah," not about his being God.
And yet again, your "BELIEVED" claim simply disagrees with truthful words of Jesus, which is really sad that years of Scripture study resulted in refusal to believe in Jesus as God. Considering intensity of human belief, am amazed that Sanhedrin religious leaders understood what Jesus said.
And THIS thinly-veiled commentary about me also avoids any direct engagement with the substantive issue I raised in my previous post.... Your emerging practice of substituting personal commentary for serious engagement prompts me to revive an axiom I haven't needed for a few months in these forums: If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger.
Thankful to be poor in my human spirit to be in the Kingdom of Heaven. My prayerful attempts to address logic of claim keeps reminding me about not being God so will never directly engage question due to my Love and Worship of the True plural unified God. Jesus is my Lord God, as is Abba, Father, Daddy, Poppa being my Lord God, along with Breath The Holy being my Lord God, reflecting One singular name in Matthew 28:19
You don't have to be or claim to be God in order to address the simple HUMAN logic question I have posed to you several times now, including once previously in this current post.
Puzzled by belief assumption being unable to explain what the text says. The Son of Man will be seated at God's right hand is truthfully consistent with John 17:5 (God's Glory before the world existed) as Jesus returned (ascended) to The Father's side to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Son of God question asks about being a descendant of David (reflecting study of God's covenant to David in 2 Samuel 7:1-16).
In my previous post I explained EXACTLY what the text says. Your response here fails to mention, let alone engage, the content of my post.
Critique rationale is a conflict resolution deception that shows belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." is more important than what the text truly says. With God The Father's words, Jesus (Word of God) declared the Sanhedrin Jewish religious leaders and judges would NEVER BELIEVE. Suspect Sanhedrin religious leaders valued their own self-righteousness and power more than loving God first (even though daily habits said Deuteronomy 6:4-9 at least twice, but the text words had become vain repetition with their hearts far from God).
And YET AGAIN you choose not to mention, let alone engage, the substance of my post, this time via the deployment of a "conflict resolution deception" meme to accompany your oft-used (and often superfluous) "belief assumption" meme.
In an education setting that recognizes assumption of 0=1 being faulty, the claim 1+1=17 would receive a failing grade. In a place where 0=1 is ok, then what is truth ?
I have no idea what this means or how it is relevant to my previous use of the "1+1=17" imagery.
Curious about answer(s) provided by the two distinct spirits: Has Jesus Christ (The Messiah) come in the flesh ? (1 John 4.2 & 2 John 7)
Yes, Jesus came in the flesh. THEN, he was a human being. NOW, he lives in us as a spirit (c.f. Paul's reference to "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" in Philippians 1.19).
Thankful for one plural unified God having distinct voices while spiritually always being One God who was, who is, & who is coming.
I respect and celebrate your faith.
A FINAL WORD: Your continuing practice of refusing to address directly the content of my posts, including its questions, is becoming an issue for me. I address nearly every point you make in your posts and do so directly, while you choose off-topic and/or personal commentary in place of direct responses. If your practice continues, I will discontinue engaging you in these forums. I put effort into creating my posts and choosing the questions I raise for your response. You are, of course, free not to respond to them, but I have many better uses of my time than to create posts that you'll refuse to engage.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote ( in reply to @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
A FINAL WORD: Your continuing practice of refusing to address directly the content of my posts, including its questions, is becoming an issue for me. I address nearly every point you make in your posts and do so directly, while you choose off-topic and/or personal commentary in place of direct responses. If your practice continues, I will discontinue engaging you in these forums. I put effort into creating my posts and choosing the questions I raise for your response. You are, of course, free not to respond to them, but I have many better uses of my time than to create posts that you'll refuse to engage.
Well stated, Bill! Unfortunately, @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus (and also @YourTruthGod) do not show themselves as willing to participate in what one would consider to be a real and true discussion or exchange on biblical texts.
-
Wolfgang has been very disrespectful to me. I didn't say or do anything to deserve the awful way he treats me.
-
@Bill_Coley and @Wolfgang
Jesus is God. We are given ONE SPIRIT to live in our heart when we are saved, yet we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three are one and the same.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
Wolfgang has been very disrespectful to me. I didn't say or do anything to deserve the awful way he treats me.
Pointing out someone's error is not disrespectful, especially not when pointing out scriptures and reasonable thinking for what is being said or written. It seems more that YOU have been quite disrespectful to me - and also Bill - by attacking our character and person while at the same time refusing to engage in detail the questions you were asked and the detailed points raised in replies to your posts.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
@Bill_Coley and @Wolfgang
Jesus is God. We are given ONE SPIRIT to live in our heart when we are saved, yet we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three are one and the same.
Repeat it as often as you like ... BUT Father, Son and holy spirit are not one and the same nor do they become that because you think so and repeat it a little more often.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
Jesus is God. We are given ONE SPIRIT to live in our heart when we are saved, yet we have the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three are one and the same.
I respect and celebrate your faith claims, but assert with every confidence of my own faith journey and Scripture study that there is no biblical warrant for your claims that Jesus is God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one and the same." We obviously disagree.
Wolfgang has been very disrespectful to me. I didn't say or do anything to deserve the awful way he treats me.
Commenting on Wolfgang's posting style in a response to you comes across to me as talking behind his back, so I won't do that. Instead, I will remind you that...
- Two wrongs don't make a right. Alleging "mental problems" in another CD poster is wrong, full stop.
- Each of us has our own posting style, which invariably means we must adjust to styles different from ours. The best strategy I've devised in my years as a CD poster is to give MUCH less weight to the personal stuff other posters throw in their posts (e.g. derogatory assertions about our intelligence or our ability to read/understand words) than I give to the on-topic content of their posts. There is no justification for personal attacks in these forums, but they happen. When they happen, the best thing to do is to ignore them. If a post contains nothing but personal attacks, my approach is either not to respond at all, or to reply with words such as "This isn't a thread about me or you, so I'm not going to respond to your most recent post. Do you have any comments about the subject we're discussing?" My objective is not to add fuel to the fire such personal commentaries create.
- I've been called all kinds of derogatory names in these threads, usually by posters who provide very little substance in their on-topic comments. I used to raise holy hell about such names, but over time realized that name callers will be name callers - i.e. people rarely change their posting styles. Now I simply tell name callers that I am not surprised by their practice, and then move back to the on-topic discussion. I recommend the same strategy to you.
-
You are not speaking the truth about me. Stop telling me what I am doing because you are wrong. If you can't be respectful but only angry, mean, and slanderous, then you do have a problem, a mental problem, a heart problem, you need to get the Lord in you.
-
I respect and celebrate your faith claims, but assert with every confidence of my own faith journey and Scripture study that there is no biblical warrant for your claims that Jesus is God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one and the same." We obviously disagree.
I have already proved you wrong.
We don't have a Spirit called the Spirit of God, and another Spirit called the Spirit of Christ, and another Spirit called the Holy Spirit.
We aren't given three different Spirits when we are saved, only one Spirit, yet we have the Father and Son.
Commenting on Wolfgang's posting style in a response to you comes across to me as talking behind his back, so I won't do that. Instead, I will remind you that...
You are the one who brought up Wolfgang to me first; and, it isn't talking behind someone's back when we are speaking publicly.
If you are so noble, then you should have private messaged Wolfgang and told him to cool it with his abusive replies to me.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Alleging "mental problems" in another CD poster is wrong, full stop.
- He is the one who has said worse things to me. You both need to stop it now.
Each of us has our own posting style, which invariably means we must adjust to styles different from ours. The best strategy I've devised in my years as a CD poster is to give MUCH less weight to the personal stuff other posters throw in their posts (e.g. derogatory assertions about our intelligence or our ability to read/understand words) than I give to the on-topic content of their posts. There is no justification for personal attacks in these forums, but they happen. When they happen, the best thing to do is to ignore them. If a post contains nothing but personal attacks, my approach is either not to respond at all, or to reply with words such as "This isn't a thread about me or you, so I'm not going to respond to your most recent post. Do you have any comments about the subject we're discussing?" My objective is not to add fuel to the fire such personal commentaries create.
The post wasn't about you. You injected yourself into the discussion in a wrong way. Why don't you take your own advice what you just gave me?
I've been called all kinds of derogatory names in these threads, usually by posters who provide very little substance in their on-topic comments. I used to raise holy hell about such names, but over time realized that name callers will be name callers - i.e. people rarely change their posting styles. Now I simply tell name callers that I am not surprised by their practice, and then move back to the on-topic discussion. I recommend the same strategy to you.
I can stand up for myself if I want I did nothing wrong. Now move on with talking to me like this publicly. You could have private messaged me with your hypocritical advice.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
I have already proved you wrong.
We don't have a Spirit called the Spirit of God, and another Spirit called the Spirit of Christ, and another Spirit called the Holy Spirit.
We aren't given three different Spirits when we are saved, only one Spirit, yet we have the Father and Son.
No. You've proven that you think I'm wrong.
I don't claim that the Spirit of God is different from the Holy Spirit, so I've not claimed that we're given "three different Spirits."
When I refer to "the Spirit of Jesus," I quote Scripture. I'm comfortable with that decision. I know of no text that declares the Spirit of Jesus is the same as the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. I welcome you to show me the text that so equates them.
You are the one who brought up Wolfgang to me first; and, it isn't talking behind someone's back when we are speaking publicly.
If you are so noble, then you should have private messaged Wolfgang and told him to cool it with his abusive replies to me.
I don't know what you're referring to when you say I "brought up" Wolfgang to you first. It really doesn't matter. My counsel to you is the same I have posted for Wolfgang, for @reformed, for all other CD participants, and for myself: We can only control our own posts and posting styles, so in those comply with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." Will that strategy guarantee that others will comply as we have? No, but as followers of Jesus we ought to be used to that. We don't love others because they'll love us back. We love others because we've been commanded to do by our Lord, and because it's the right thing to do.
He is the one who has said worse things to me. You both need to stop it now.
I understand the feeling. As I noted to you previously, I went through a season in my CD career when I protested vigorously how others posted to and about me. I established embargoes against specific posters, even dropped out of posting altogether a couple of times in silent protest of the posts to which I felt I had been subjected. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but today I see things differently. Perhaps one day you will too. If not, I understand and respect your grievance.
If you think I'm being hard on you, you're badly mistaken. I am maniacally determined to uphold the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation, and tolerate no violations in my posts. You don't like my advice - your choice - but what I've posted to you has not violated that norm.
I can stand up for myself if I want I did nothing wrong. Now move on with talking to me like this publicly. You could have private messaged me with your hypocritical advice.
University studies have shown that "hypocritical advice" is 31% more hypocritical when sent by private message, so I share my HA in public forums only.
-
@Wolfgang wrote: Pointing out someone's error is not disrespectful, especially not when pointing out scriptures and reasonable thinking for what is being said or written. It seems more that YOU have been quite disrespectful to me - and also Bill - by attacking our character and person while at the same time refusing to engage in detail the questions you were asked and the detailed points raised in replies to your posts.
@YourTruthGod replied:
You are not speaking the truth about me.
I most certainly speak the truth about you, and you actually confirm what I have written with your replies.
Stop telling me what I am doing because you are wrong.
Just because you make big fat claims which you don't support with facts, does not make your doings any better.
If you can't be respectful but only angry, mean, and slanderous, then you do have a problem, a mental problem, a heart problem, you need to get the Lord in you.
Read again what you wrote here ... YOU are the one spewing out slanderous unproven accusations and show yourself to be the angry and disrespectful person.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Repeating follow-up question: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?" (John 12:44-50 Jesus chose to obey The Father)
@Bill_Coley I'll address your question as soon as you address my question, the one I now ask a third time: If Jesus was God, wouldn't he have known about all seeds, or do you claim that as God he was not as omniscient as the God he addressed as "Father"?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus My answer to your question is my question. Jesus chose to obey God The Father by speaking God's words given to Jesus, enabling humans to hear/obey words of Jesus to do God The Father's will. Hence, relevant question is: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?"
@Bill_Coley So in your view, God is responsible for the fact that Jesus inaccurately called the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds on earth?
@Bill_Coley I'm raising a factual issue here, not an interpretive one. The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact. It's the assertion, not the broader parable, I asked you about.
Thankful for article you linked on October 1 showing Greek phrase ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (upon the earth) is repeated in God's original parable wording.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Logos Bible software Reverse Interlinear Greek alignment in NLT shows "It is the smallest * * * of all seeds" * * * => ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (not in NLT)
@Bill_Coley We agree.
NLT translation committee choose not to repeat in English the words qualifying smallest of all seeds. Fact: NLT left out some parable words. No factual reference has been provided for a seed "sown on the ground" by humans for agricultural use during the time of Jesus that is smaller than a mustard seed. Hence, your idea "The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact" has been stated several times without factual proof.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus In how many life domains should two in marriage become one ? Spiritual, Emotional, Mental, Social, Functional/Physical ? ... Jesus has an eternal identity (voice & mind) distinct from The Father while being One God Spiritually (includes being Unified in all life domains)
@Bill_Coley Yet again your response fails to engage - or even mention - the John 17 text to which I called your attention, and on which I asked for your comment, the text in which Jesus defines what he means when he says he and God are "one."
Curious about your "one" expectation in John 17:20-21 ? (to me, "one" means being unified in the same way as God's design for one in marriage, which includes taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ as my Lord God Jesus does to obey Lord God The Father's will)
How is God's design of two becoming one in marriage not applicable to John 17:20-21 ? (your October 27 post described "one" as "perfect unity")
Ephesians 5:25-33 (LEB) was removed during your quoting of my words along with no comment about the great mystery of Christ and the church.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Puzzled by "in the prophet's time" being based on the helping verb have for English perfect tense (action done in the past with ongoing effect).
@Bill_Coley Exactly my point. When Jeremiah reports that shepherds "have" destroyed and "have" scattered, and "have" deserted, he's describing actions that were done in the past - i.e. in his time or earlier. Their "ongoing effect" in the prophet's work is that they help shape God's current and planned responses.
What is the difference between prepositional phrases: "in the past" and "of the prophet's day" (your previous comments about Jeremiah 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, & 23.7-8 posted on October 5) ? ("in the past" & "of the prophet's day" lack exact agreement so are not interchangeable)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Context is every word having meaning in a sentence, paragraph, larger unit. Faith assumption "a return home to the exiles of the prophet's day" simply disagrees with what the text says God commanded Jeremiah about weeping: You must not weep for the dead person, and you must not show sympathy for him. Weep bitterly for the one who goes away, for he will not return, or see the land of his birth again. Jeremiah 22:10 (LEB)
@Bill_Coley And in Jer 23.11, the LEB identifies "the one who goes away" as Shallum - another name for Jehoahaz - "the son of Josiah, the king of Judah" in the prophet's day.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jeremiah 22 begins with Lord God's message to the house of the King of Judah, which switches focus to Jerusalem... followed by proclamations about three individuals in the house of the King of Judah. Notice plural pronoun they: As for the land to which they are longing to return, they will not return. Jeremiah 22:27 (LEB) so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
@Bill_Coley Jerusalem was part of Judah.
Physically the city of Jerusalem was part of Judah. All tribes of Israel were to participate in three annual Holy feasts at God's Temple in Jerusalem. Jeremiah 22:8-10 (LEB) was removed during your quoting of my words along with no comment about how many nations will pass by this city ...
@Bill_Coley My previous post referenced Jer 23.11, when, as you likely noticed, it's Jer 22.11 that defines Jehoahaz as the one who went away and never returned. My mistake.
Since did not know what you intended with Jer 23.11 (did not match your comments), did not mention Jer 23.11 (very sad reason for weeping).
@Bill_Coley Your response fails to engage the substance of my previous, typo-infected, post: That the text you cited from Jeremiah 22 is clearly about events in the prophet's time, as Jer 22.11 demonstrates.
Future tense will does not specify being in the prophet's time (may happen during prophet's life OR may happen many years later). Searching LEB for will finds 27 results in Jeremiah chapter 22 and 36 results in Jeremiah chapter 23 (clearly prophecy will happen in God's perfect timing).
Noticed no comment about my direct reply referencing Jeremiah 22:27 so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur God did not give words to Jeremiah about how many years for future fulfillment of Jeremiah 23:5-6 while in the prophet's day had nobody righteous on the throne of King David. In fact, Jeremiah 22 ends with a curse: Thus says Yahweh: “Record this man as childless, a man who will not succeed in his days, for no man from his offspring will succeed him, sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.” Jeremiah 22:30 (LEB), who is left out of the Matthew 1:1 lineage of Joseph. During 70 years of Babylonian captivity, God gave 70 weeks of years timing prophecy to Daniel.
@Bill_Coley God doesn't give Jeremiah a number of years, but he does give the prophet a descriptive frame of reference, in Jer 23.8: Instead, they will say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the people of Israel back to their own land from the land of the north and from all the countries to which he had exiled them.’ Then they will live in their own land.” The prophet's clearly talking about the return of the exiles from Babylon, which of course happened within 70 years... during or shortly after the prophet's time.
The anger of Yahweh will not turn back until his doing and until his keeping the plans of his mind. In latter days you will look closely at it with understanding. Jeremiah 23:20 (LEB) promises understanding of God's prophecy in hindsight, but does not pronounce how long for God's plans.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur Peter and Paul used the word "man" ἀνήρ to describe the adult male human physical body of Jesus (does not describe spirit inside body).
@Bill_Coley Common ground is good.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus SBLGNT paragraph of Acts 2.22-28 shows first sentence ends in the middle of Acts 2.22 while the second sentence ends in Acts 2.25 (has a colon at the end of Acts 2.24), which begins with Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Acts 2.22 (SBLGNT), literally 'Jesus the Nazarene, man declared from the God ...' NIDNTTE article about the preposition ἀπὸ begins: "The earliest attested function of ἀπό—and indeed the most common—is to indicate the starting point of physical movement, ..." that is consistent with Jesus (Word of God) leaving His Heavenly Throne being sent from God to dwell in a male human body, which could be freely offered as a Holy substitutionay sin sacrifice (to do God's Will).
@Bill_Coley Nothing in the SBLGNT reference you cite changes the unambiguous meaning of the Acts 2 passage, which is that God approved, authorized, and sent the human being named Jesus to do great things, to die, and then to be raised from the dead by God.
Human being has an implication that the spirit inside Jesus was a descendant from God's breath of life into dust to create Adam (Let US make man in OUR image). Yet the spirit inside adult male human body of Jesus knew God's Glory at the side of Father before physical world creation.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Human example of one sent being the one sending: for the funeral of Shimon Perez in Jerusalem on 30 Sep 2016, President Obama chose President Obama to diplomatically represent the United States (along with speaking during the funeral).
@Bill_Coley At issue in our discussion is not whether President Obama is President Obama, or God is God, or Jesus is Jesus. At issue is whether Jesus is God. You say he is. I say he isn't. The fact that President Obama is President Obama is of no consequence to our disagreement.
On May 2019 your reply in this discussion ended with human wisdom idea:
@Bill_Coley One who COMES FROM God can't BE God, just as one SENT BY God can't BE God.
President Obama example is a valid counterpoint that factually disagrees with human wisdom idea. Hence, the one sent by God can be God.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Apologies for me not being able to comment on your logic due to me being human, not God (so would be sin for me to claim to be God = a lie).
@Bill_Coley The question I asked did not require you to claim to be God; it asked you to confirm the very human logic of this statement: Just because religious leaders BELIEVED Jesus claimed to God DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN Jesus ACTUALLY claimed to be God. Yes, it's POSSIBLE they were correct in their belief, but the fact that they claimed it does NOT necessarily mean they were right. In fact, it is POSSIBLE they were MISTAKEN.
@Bill_Coley You don't have to be God, or claim to be God, in order to confirm the obvious truth of that statement. Religious leaders' BELIEFS were NOT, in and of themselves, PROOF that Jesus was God. The COULD HAVE BEEN mistaken.
Your words are your own with no comment by me about your obvious human belief logic (we disagree about your leading question implications).
In Luke 22:67, Jesus spoke God's words in the Sanhedrin to Jewish religious leaders that they would never believe. Hence your continuing use of "BELIEVED" to describe reaction of those religious leaders to what they heard Jesus say simply disagrees with what God said would never happen.
Remember these Jewish religious leaders outwardly appeared righteous, which included obeying the Ten Commandments. If they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against murder (so publically would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant to them).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please answer the existence question: "How can Jesus not be God ?" that really has three choices to consider: 1) God The Father and Jesus are two completely distinct spiritual entities OR 2) unified spiritually in One God while having eternally distinct voices OR 3) Jesus lied (so cannot be God).
@Bill_Coley In my view, the clear witness of the New Testament is that God and Jesus are completely distinct spiritual entities, Jesus having been a human being.
Does two completely distinct spiritual entities = two gods ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Conversely none of the commentary you have provided has any reason for me to doubt my friend, Lord God Jesus Christ, King of Righteousness, who loves and worships God The Father. Thankful for my worship & praise of One God: at times to individual voice(s) & at times all to One God.
@Bill_Coley I respect and celebrate your faith.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Embedded in expected answer for question is belief assumption being validated. My previous & current answers reflect my belief assumption of One God being literally true. Looking forward to being in bride of The Lamb so can join The Lamb (Word of God) in worshipping God The Father. Thankful for The Word of God spiritual portion in YHWH choosing to leave His Holy Throne at the side of God The Father in heaven to dwell inside an adult male body for ultimate worship => Holy, unblemished sin sacrifice for God's loving redemption of any human who really, really wants to Love God first with everything. Thankful for my ongoing redemption by the blood of Jesus that enables my choice to Love God first to experience God's Holy presence, which is beyond words to describe: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control.
@Bill_Coley And yet again you choose not to address directly a question I asked, so I ask it yet again: If Jesus believed himself to be God, why did he tell his disciples that he was ascending to the one who was his and their God? How could one who was God ascend to his (and their) God, to his (and their) Father? Please engage this question directly.
Appears respect and celebration of my faith cannot comprehend (believe) my direct answers. While Jesus is Lord God (same yesterday, today, & forever), Jesus loves & worships Father as God. Ascension to Holy Heaven allowed Jesus to complete atonement sin sacrifice in Abba's presence.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Disappointing study result as Messiah question reflects Lord God's covenant to David about one descendant (a son) that rules forever, only God is eternal.... 2 Samuel 7:1-16 (LEB)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Father and Son prophecy is in Psalm 2:7. Jesus asked religious lawyers and judges about the true meaning of Psalm 110 several times.
@Bill_Coley Your response here doesn't mention, let alone engage, the portion of my previous post to which it claims to respond - that in Luke 22.67, when Jesus says "If I tell you, you will not believe me..." he answers a question about his being "the Messiah," not about his being God.
Sanhedrin's Messiah question is a diety question as the Jewish religious leaders remembered Lord God's covenant to David about forever ruler.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If Jesus is Lord God, would He be righteously angry with belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." ? Psalm 2:12
Wonder about your thoughts of Lord God Jesus being righteously angry with one who teaches Scriptures while not believing Jesus is Lord God ?
@Bill_Coley A FINAL WORD: Your continuing practice of refusing to address directly the content of my posts, including its questions, is becoming an issue for me. I address nearly every point you make in your posts and do so directly, while you choose off-topic and/or personal commentary in place of direct responses. If your practice continues, I will discontinue engaging you in these forums. I put effort into creating my posts and choosing the questions I raise for your response. You are, of course, free not to respond to them, but I have many better uses of my time than to create posts that you'll refuse to engage.
@Wolfgang Well stated, Bill! Unfortunately, @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus (and also @YourTruthGod) do not show themselves as willing to participate in what one would consider to be a real and true discussion or exchange on biblical texts.
Trying to impose your belief assumptions through crafty wording of leading questions is challenging for my replies; am trying to directly engage points (after praying to God for help expressing God's Truth in Love using kind words). Considering our faith belief assumption differences affects what we believe the text says has the effect of many responses appearing off-topic (seldom do we agree). Thus far none of your expressions (@Bill_Coley & @Wolfgang) about my faith have been correct as my literal truth trust in One plural unified God is not understood nor believed.
Noticed November 3 did not directly respond to some items in my November 2 reply (mentioned earlier in this reply, which at times needed more of my November 2 quoting due to puzzling November 3 quoting & comments: appears debating misdirection tactic being used yet again).
Also puzzled by @YourTruthGod comments that lack clarity: e.g. Initial post by @YourTruthGod in this thread from October 2019:
@YourTruthGod Jesus is God the Father come as a son of man.
@YourTruthGod And each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around and within. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"
My question "Assertion has puzzling wording so please clarify. If "Jesus is God the Father" then who is Abba for prayers by Jesus ?" still lacks a direct answer from @YourTruthGod. September 10 reply by @YourTruthGod had three statements that really did not answer my question:
@YourTruthGod God the Father is an Invisible Spirit and lives in unapproachable light.
@YourTruthGod God the Father while living in unapproachable light, also made Himself a physical flesh body.
@YourTruthGod The three are one, and 'one' even means 'the same'.
Who was the recipient for prayers from the physical flesh body of Jesus ? Who was The Father to Jesus ?
My questions are a variation of @Wolfgang's on September 16 (concur with @Wolfgang & @Bill_Coley about being puzzled by @YourTruthGod )
@YourTruthGod Jesus is God the Father.
@Wolfgang hmn .... hmn .... hmn .... this blind guy here just can't see what you claim there. I must be totally in the dark.
@Wolfgang Any enlightenment possible to see how someone is his own father? or how he is his own son?
SBLGNT (Society of Biblical Literature Greek NT) shows John 17:4-5 is one Greek sentence that has a colon at the end of John 17:4. Jesus praying in John 17:4-5 (LEB) I have glorified you on earth by completing the work that you have given me to do. And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side* before the world existed. shows Jesus & God the Father had distinct voices before creating physical world as One God.
Jewish reading of Hebrew scriptures includes saying Adonai (Lord) for YHWH (Tetragrammaton = God's most holy name). Revelation 4:8 Lord God relfects Deuteronomy 6:4 (Complete Jewish Bible) “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad [Hear, Isra’el! Adonai our God, Adonai is one] with Revelation 4:8 phrase "who was and is and is to come" expressing YHWH name meaning. Concur with @Bill_Coley that Revelation 4:8 text does not prove idea "Jesus is God the Father come as a son of man." (and idea disagrees with words Jesus prayed in John 17:4-5 & John 17:20-23)
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Thankful for article you linked on October 1 showing Greek phrase ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (upon the earth) is repeated in God's original parable wording.
"Upon the earth," yes, BUT NOT "sown upon the earth." Neither the biblical text nor the article to which I linked says that. You're welcome to read it into the text, but you can't say the text itself says it, because it doesn't.
NLT translation committee choose not to repeat in English the words qualifying smallest of all seeds. Fact: NLT left out some parable words. No factual reference has been provided for a seed "sown on the ground" by humans for agricultural use during the time of Jesus that is smaller than a mustard seed. Hence, your idea "The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact" has been stated several times without factual proof.
This is NOT what the article to which I linked concluded.
I have no idea what the sentence "No factual reference has been provided for a seed 'sown on the ground' by humans for agricultural use during the time of Jesus that is smaller than a mustard seed" means. The suggestion that the seed Jesus references is specifically some seed sown onto the ground was YOUR suggestion, not mine. I think of humans as sowers of seeds. If when you reference a seed "sown" onto the earth you do NOT mean done so by human hands, then we may have common ground. Nevertheless, the orchid seed is the smallest of all seeds on earth, not the mustard seed.
Curious about your "one" expectation in John 17:20-21 ? (to me, "one" means being unified in the same way as God's design for one in marriage, which includes taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ as my Lord God Jesus does to obey Lord God The Father's will)
How is God's design of two becoming one in marriage not applicable to John 17:20-21 ? (your October 27 post described "one" as "perfect unity")
In my previous post to you, I contended that marriage is not an example of two becoming one. It's two people whose union is something greater than themselves, but who retain their unique personhoods; one marriage partner does not become the other. In the "perfect unity" Jesus describes and seeks for his followers, he doesn't become the Father any more than he believes his followers will become each other when they discover and express such perfect unity. So in my view, marriage is not a template for Trinitarian theology.
Ephesians 5:25-33 (LEB) was removed during your quoting of my words along with no comment about the great mystery of Christ and the church.
I had already commented on marriage in my post, and I concluded that the Ephesians text tilled no new ground on the subject.
The point of my post was that NEITHER phrase refers to future events; BOTH refer to events either in the prophet's time frame or earlier, as do the prophet's other time references.
Physically the city of Jerusalem was part of Judah. All tribes of Israel were to participate in three annual Holy feasts at God's Temple in Jerusalem. Jeremiah 22:8-10 (LEB) was removed during your quoting of my words along with no comment about how many nations will pass by this city ...
The point of my post was that references to Jerusalem were also references to Judah, which meant that the identification of Shallum - a king of the prophet's day - applied.
In my view, the Jeremiah 22 text added nothing to - made no comment about - the discussion of my point about the time frame of the prophet's reference to Shallum, so I didn't engage it.
Future tense will does not specify being in the prophet's time (may happen during prophet's life OR may happen many years later). Searching LEB for will finds 27 results in Jeremiah chapter 22 and 36 results in Jeremiah chapter 23 (clearly prophecy will happen in God's perfect timing).
In Jeremiah 22.11, "will" indeed DOES refer to the prophet's time. The verse addresses the fate of a specific king of the prophet's day, Shallum (or Jehoahaz). It says that specific king "will never return, and will "die in distant land." Of course that's the prophet's day.
Jeremiah 22.13 introduces Jehoiakim, another king of the prophet's day.
Jeremiah 22.18 introduces God's judgment about Jehoiakim.
Jeremiah 22.24 reports God's decision to abandon Jehoiachin, yet another specific king of the prophet's day.
Noticed no comment about my direct reply referencing Jeremiah 22:27 so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
I think you meant to refer to Jeremiah 22.10.
Who is "the one who goes away"? The house of the king of Judah who does not obey (Jeremiah 22.2). Who is the prime example? Jehoahaz (Jer 22.11), of the prophet's day. In v.10, God refers to the one who will "never return to see his native land again." In v.11, God says Jehoahaz "will never return."
The anger of Yahweh will not turn back until his doing and until his keeping the plans of his mind. In latter days you will look closely at it with understanding. Jeremiah 23:20 (LEB) promises understanding of God's prophecy in hindsight, but does not pronounce how long for God's plans.
Again, the prophet ties his prophecy to the return of the exiles from the north. That's a reference to exiles in Babylon, of the prophet's day.
Human being has an implication that the spirit inside Jesus was a descendant from God's breath of life into dust to create Adam (Let US make man in OUR image). Yet the spirit inside adult male human body of Jesus knew God's Glory at the side of Father before physical world creation.
We've discussed the pre-existence sayings on multiple occasions.
And you STILL have not offered your understanding of Peter's sermon in Acts 2. What does Peter mean to tell us about Jesus when he says "God publicly endorsed Jesus the Nazarene by doing powerful miracles, wonders, and signs through him, as you well know. 23 But God knew what would happen, and his prearranged plan was carried out when Jesus was betrayed. With the help of lawless Gentiles, you nailed him to a cross and killed him. 24 But God released him from the horrors of death and raised him back to life, for death could not keep him in its grip," or when he calls Jesus the "Messiah" God had "appointed" for them? (Acts 3.20)
Peter believes God appointed and did miracles through Jesus, and then raised him back to life" after he was crucified. How do THOSE SPECIFIC CLAIMS of Peter's demonstrate a belief that Jesus was God? Where in ANY of Peter's preaching in Acts do you find evidence that Peter believed Jesus was God?
President Obama example is a valid counterpoint that factually disagrees with human wisdom idea. Hence, the one sent by God can be God.
By definition, the words "President Obama" are EXACTLY THE SAME AS AND IDENTIFY EXACTLY THE SAME PERSON AS the words "President Obama." Just as the word "horse" identifies exactly the same species as the word "horse." Only by one's personal faith claim does the word "Jesus" identify exactly the same entity as the word "God." Why so? Because the word "Jesus" is NOT exactly the same as the word "God." Your example of President Obama sending President Obama, therefore, is NOT a "valid counterpoint" to my claim that the one sent by another can't be the other.
One identified as the sender is, by definition, NOT the same as the one (or thing) the sender sends. President Obama didn't send himself. He decided to lead the American delegation.
Remember these Jewish religious leaders outwardly appeared righteous, which included obeying the Ten Commandments. If they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against murder (so publically would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant to them).
So when the Pharisees contended that Jesus could cast out demons "because he is empowered by the prince of demons"(Matthew 9.34), do you argue that they must have been correct because "[i]f they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against [bearing false witness] (so publically [sic] would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant [sic] to them)"?
Does two completely distinct spiritual entities = two gods ?
No. One God. One human being called/sent/appointed by God (e.g. Acts 3.20, 10.42)
Appears respect and celebration of my faith cannot comprehend (believe) my direct answers. While Jesus is Lord God (same yesterday, today, & forever), Jesus loves & worships Father as God. Ascension to Holy Heaven allowed Jesus to complete atonement sin sacrifice in Abba's presence.
I accept and respect this as reflective of your personal faith, but claim there is no scriptural support for your view.
Sanhedrin's Messiah question is a diety question as the Jewish religious leaders remembered Lord God's covenant to David about forever ruler.
The promise to David about a "forever ruler" had NOTHING to do with a deity. 1 Kings 9.4-5 says "4 “As for you, if you will follow me with integrity and godliness, as David your father did, obeying all my commands, decrees, and regulations, 5 then I will establish the throne of your dynasty over Israel forever. For I made this promise to your father, David: ‘One of your descendants will always sit on the throne of Israel.’
The promise is that the throne of Israel will always be occupied by someone from David's line, NOT that it would be occupied by a deity.
Wonder about your thoughts of Lord God Jesus being righteously angry with one who teaches Scriptures while not believing Jesus is Lord God ?
How is this question germane to the issues and biblical texts we're discussing?
Trying to impose your belief assumptions through crafty wording of leading questions is challenging for my replies; am trying to directly engage points (after praying to God for help expressing God's Truth in Love using kind words). Considering our faith belief assumption differences affects what we believe the text says has the effect of many responses appearing off-topic (seldom do we agree). Thus far none of your expressions (@Bill_Coley & @Wolfgang) about my faith have been correct as my literal truth trust in One plural unified God is not understood nor believed.
I ask straightforward questions to which you frequently give no direct responses. If you consider my questions "leading," then say so and point out, specifically, how the question is leading. I think I ask pointed, direct questions, candid responses to which would demonstrate the weakness of your argument. For example, Peter's presentations in Act 2 AND 4 do severe, crippling damage to the "Jesus is God" view. Over the years, I've asked other posters about those passages, and they, like you, refused to address them. Why? I believe because there is no effective defense against the damage Peter's words do to your claim of Jesus' deity.
FWIW, you're not the only one who doesn't answer questions in these forums! Other posters simply refuse to mention, let alone directly address, some of the questions I ask, almost always because candid responses would demonstrate the frailty of their arguments. How do I know? Because they answer SOME of my questions, but not others. They mention SOME of my questions, but refuse even to acknowledge the existence of others... usually the most pointed of the questions.
Noticed November 3 did not directly respond to some items in my November 2 reply (mentioned earlier in this reply, which at times needed more of my November 2 quoting due to puzzling November 3 quoting & comments: appears debating misdirection tactic being used yet again).
I don't have the time or patience to decode the specific points to which you're referring here.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful for article you linked on October 1 showing Greek phrase ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (upon the earth) is repeated in God's original parable wording.
@Bill_Coley "Upon the earth," yes, BUT NOT "sown upon the earth." Neither the biblical text nor the article to which I linked says that. You're welcome to read it into the text, but you can't say the text itself says it, because it doesn't.
Simply reading scripture context is not reading into the text. Lexham English Bible (LEB) translates repetition of "when", "sown", and "on the ground" to describe mustard seed in Mark 4:30-32 (LEB) And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or by what parable can we present it? It is like a mustard seed that when sown on the ground, although it is the smallest of all the seeds that are on the ground, but when it is sown it grows up and becomes the largest of all the garden herbs, and sends out large branches so that the birds of the sky are able to nest in its shade.”
When original Jewish audience heard repetition of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (translated "on the ground" in LEB), they remembered mustard seed was sown with implication human being did the seed sowing plus original parable wording repeats ὅταν σπαρῇ (when sown) after "on the ground" repetition.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus NLT translation committee choose not to repeat in English the words qualifying smallest of all seeds. Fact: NLT left out some parable words. No factual reference has been provided for a seed "sown on the ground" by humans for agricultural use during the time of Jesus that is smaller than a mustard seed. Hence, your idea "The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact" has been stated several times without factual proof.
@Bill_Coley This is NOT what the article to which I linked concluded.
Author of that article is not participating in this thread (article solution differs from your assertion). My conclusion is relevant for this discussion.
@Bill_Coley I have no idea what the sentence "No factual reference has been provided for a seed 'sown on the ground' by humans for agricultural use during the time of Jesus that is smaller than a mustard seed" means. The suggestion that the seed Jesus references is specifically some seed sown onto the ground was YOUR suggestion, not mine. I think of humans as sowers of seeds. If when you reference a seed "sown" onto the earth you do NOT mean done so by human hands, then we may have common ground. Nevertheless, the orchid seed is the smallest of all seeds on earth, not the mustard seed.
Mark 4:30-32 (NLT) Jesus said, “How can I describe the Kingdom of God? What story should I use to illustrate it? It is like a mustard seed planted in the ground. It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of all garden plants; it grows long branches, and birds can make nests in its shade.” leaves out original language repetition of "on the ground" (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), "when" (ὅταν), "sown" (σπαρῇ) to describe "it" (mustard seed) as the smallest. Factually the parable wording in New Living Translation (NLT) is missing original language repetition. Also your idea "The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact" ignores "planted in the ground" context of the preceding NLT sentence. Concur "the orchid seed is the smallest of all seeds on earth" is correct for 'in the air' propagation of several orchid varieties, but original language parable wording has not been proven false, which was also lacking in the article you linked on October 1 that mentioned three flower seed sizes smaller than mustard (has a footnote to an archived online discussion). Historical Socio-Rhetorical proof about Jewish planting in the ground lacks proof about smaller seeds being planted. In fact, the silence of hostile hearers in original audience speaks volumes about original parable wording being true. The hostile hearers were Jewish religious lawyers and judges whose duties included interpreting Torah teachings for daily activities: e.g. Leviticus 23:3 (LEB) “ ‘For six days work is to be done, and on the seventh day shall be a Sabbath of complete rest, a holy assembly; you shall not do any work; it shall be a Sabbath for Yahweh in all your dwellings. that was interpreted by Jewish Rabbi's for defining 'any work' with binding implementation (& violations punished).
Really curious about your direct answer to my previous relevant question: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?" Related question is "Did Jesus (as God knowing seed sizes), agree with God The Father about parable wording so obediently spoke God's Words ?"
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Curious about your "one" expectation in John 17:20-21 ? (to me, "one" means being unified in the same way as God's design for one in marriage, which includes taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ as my Lord God Jesus does to obey Lord God The Father's will)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How is God's design of two becoming one in marriage not applicable to John 17:20-21 ? (your October 27 post described "one" as "perfect unity")
@Bill_Coley In my previous post to you, I contended that marriage is not an example of two becoming one. It's two people whose union is something greater than themselves, but who retain their unique personhoods; one marriage partner does not become the other. In the "perfect unity" Jesus describes and seeks for his followers, he doesn't become the Father any more than he believes his followers will become each other when they discover and express such perfect unity. So in my view, marriage is not a template for Trinitarian theology.
To me, One God has three distinct voices perfectly unified forever. Jesus was at the side of The Father before creation of physical things, yet Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (has not and will not become The Father while intimately sharing One God's Spiritual Essence).
Appears we are so close and yet so far from common ground about God's design for marriage "perfect unity" truly describing being "one".
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Ephesians 5:25-33 (LEB) was removed during your quoting of my words along with no comment about the great mystery of Christ and the church.
@Bill_Coley I had already commented on marriage in my post, and I concluded that the Ephesians text tilled no new ground on the subject.
To me, the mystery marriage of Christ and God believers (who do God's Will) shows perfect unity design: every unique believer unified in One Holy God while each believer retains individual identity, which allows One God to address every believer by name.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus What is the difference between prepositional phrases: "in the past" and "of the prophet's day" (your previous comments about Jeremiah 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, & 23.7-8 posted on October 5) ? ("in the past" & "of the prophet's day" lack exact agreement so are not interchangeable)
@Bill_Coley The point of my post was that NEITHER phrase refers to future events; BOTH refer to events either in the prophet's time frame or earlier, as do the prophet's other time references.
Puzzled by previous inconsistency as "in the past" refers to past actions while "of the prophet's day" implies present time frame. Concur neither of these phrases refer to future events that will happen according to God's perfect planning. Jeremiah 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, & 23.7-8 has future "will" occuring 12+ times. What contextual words in Jeremiah 23.3-8 show God planned future events to be fulfilled during the prophet's day ?
Jeremiah 23:2 has will from God about punishing evil shepherds that have scattered & have driven away God's flock (people), which is followed by Jeremiah 23.3 then will happen future events (whose contextual words to my reading lack any when indications for during the prophet's day while having numerous aspects fulfilled when Jesus was on earth with some that will happen in the future: e.g. Jesus ruling as King on earth). In fact, Jeremiah 23:5-6 "days are coming ... righteous branch" was not "of the prophet's day" as 2 Chronicles 36 describes all the kings of Judah named in Jeremiah 22 as being evil in God's sight (so they were taken away) along with Jerusalem being destroyed (with nations passing by).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jeremiah 22 begins with Lord God's message to the house of the King of Judah, which switches focus to Jerusalem... followed by proclamations about three individuals in the house of the King of Judah. Notice plural pronoun they: As for the land to which they are longing to return, they will not return. Jeremiah 22:27 (LEB) so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
@Bill_Coley Jerusalem was part of Judah.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Physically the city of Jerusalem was part of Judah. All tribes of Israel were to participate in three annual Holy feasts at God's Temple in Jerusalem. Jeremiah 22:8-10 (LEB) was removed during your quoting of my words along with no comment about how many nations will pass by this city ...
@Bill_Coley The point of my post was that references to Jerusalem were also references to Judah, which meant that the identification of Shallum - a king of the prophet's day - applied.
Jeremiah 22:10 was a perfect opportunity for God to say weep bitterly for Shallum, but God choose to instruct Jeremiah to weep bitterly for the one who goes away, which included Shallum in Jeremiah 22:11 along with each one in the "they will not return" in Jeremiah 22:27
@Bill_Coley In my view, the Jeremiah 22 text added nothing to - made no comment about - the discussion of my point about the time frame of the prophet's reference to Shallum, so I didn't engage it.
Puzzled by no comment about plural pronoun they usage in Jeremiah 22:27, text counter-point to solely Shallum interpretation of Jeremiah 22:10
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Future tense will does not specify being in the prophet's time (may happen during prophet's life OR may happen many years later). Searching LEB for will finds 27 results in Jeremiah chapter 22 and 36 results in Jeremiah chapter 23 (clearly prophecy will happen in God's perfect timing).
@Bill_Coley In Jeremiah 22.11, "will" indeed DOES refer to the prophet's time. The verse addresses the fate of a specific king of the prophet's day, Shallum (or Jehoahaz). It says that specific king "will never return, and will "die in distant land." Of course that's the prophet's day.
Concur contextual words about Shallum in Jeremiah 22:11 shows God's perfect timing for will happen is "of the prophet's day" for Shallum, who ruled three months in Jerusalem (after death of Josiah) before being taken away to Egpyt as described in 2 Chronicles 36:1-4
@Bill_Coley Jeremiah 22.13 introduces Jehoiakim, another king of the prophet's day.
Jehoiakim is not named nor directly addressed in Jeremiah 22:13-14 (LEB) Woe to the one who builds his house without righteousness, and his upper rooms without justice. His fellow countryman, he works for nothing, and he does not give to him his wages. Who says ‘I will build for myself a spacious house with large upper rooms,’ and he cuts windows for it, and it is paneled with cedar, and he paints it with vermilion.
Jeremiah 22:13-14 reads to me as Holy God's timeless Truth, which had direct application to you (Jehoiakim) in Jeremiah 22:15
@Bill_Coley Jeremiah 22.18 introduces God's judgment about Jehoiakim.
Concur: Jehoiakim ruled 11 years before being taken away to Babylon as described in 2 Chronicles 36:5-8
@Bill_Coley Jeremiah 22.24 reports God's decision to abandon Jehoiachin, yet another specific king of the prophet's day.
Concur: Jehoaichin ruled three months before being taken away to Babylon as described in 2 Chronicles 36:9-10
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Noticed no comment about my direct reply referencing Jeremiah 22:27 so 'weep bitterly for the one who goes away' refers to each one sent away.
@Bill_Coley I think you meant to refer to Jeremiah 22.10.
Jeremiah 22:27 was correct in my reply.
@Bill_Coley Who is "the one who goes away"? The house of the king of Judah who does not obey (Jeremiah 22.2). Who is the prime example? Jehoahaz (Jer 22.11), of the prophet's day. In v.10, God refers to the one who will "never return to see his native land again." In v.11, God says Jehoahaz "will never return."
The message of God to the (one) house of David began in Jeremiah 21:11 also includes Jeremiah 22:27 ... they will not return
Question wording 'Who is "the one who goes away"?' embeds your study result (with your expected single person answer of Shallum).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus The anger of Yahweh will not turn back until his doing and until his keeping the plans of his mind. In latter days you will look closely at it with understanding. Jeremiah 23:20 (LEB) promises understanding of God's prophecy in hindsight, but does not pronounce how long for God's plans.
@Bill_Coley Again, the prophet ties his prophecy to the return of the exiles from the north. That's a reference to exiles in Babylon, of the prophet's day.
Modern day Iran, ancient Persia, is East of Jerusalem. Page 119 in the Rose 'Then and Now Bible Map Atlas' shows Nippur (Judean exile area in Babylon) being ~600 miles East of modern Israel with Persia being further East. Possibly Jeremiah 23:8 fulfillment is modern day Israel.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur Peter and Paul used the word "man" ἀνήρ to describe the adult male human physical body of Jesus (does not describe spirit inside body).
@Bill_Coley Common ground is good.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Human being has an implication that the spirit inside Jesus was a descendant from God's breath of life into dust to create Adam (Let US make man in OUR image). Yet the spirit inside adult male human body of Jesus knew God's Glory at the side of Father before physical world creation.
@Bill_Coley We've discussed the pre-existence sayings on multiple occasions.
@Bill_Coley And you STILL have not offered your understanding of Peter's sermon in Acts 2. What does Peter mean to tell us about Jesus when he says "God publicly endorsed Jesus the Nazarene by doing powerful miracles, wonders, and signs through him, as you well know. 23 But God knew what would happen, and his prearranged plan was carried out when Jesus was betrayed. With the help of lawless Gentiles, you nailed him to a cross and killed him. 24 But God released him from the horrors of death and raised him back to life, for death could not keep him in its grip," or when he calls Jesus the "Messiah" God had "appointed" for them? (Acts 3.20)
Acts 2 has also been discussed many times. Appears verse by verse study has a resulting myopic fixation of a snippet in the middle of Peter's message in Acts 2, an ongoing basis for your belief about the "man" Jesus being distinct from Lord God. Classic eisegesis example is reading human spirit into the word "man" ἀνήρ (since do not want to believe a spiritual portion of One God could inhabit a physical male human body).
Thankful for Jesus as Lord God Righteousness choosing to obey God The Father to do many miracles, works, and signs (lots more than recorded in scripture). Also Thankful for Jesus choosing the Joy set before Him to endure His male physical human body being brutally crucified as a Holy substitutionary sin sacrifice with all of One Lord God raising Jesus from the dead (imagine planning discussions before physical world creation included God's Glory & Love being experienced plus Joy as The Word of God would leave One God's Throne to inhabit a male human body).
@Bill_Coley Peter believes God appointed and did miracles through Jesus, and then raised him back to life" after he was crucified. How do THOSE SPECIFIC CLAIMS of Peter's demonstrate a belief that Jesus was God? Where in ANY of Peter's preaching in Acts do you find evidence that Peter believed Jesus was God?
First page of this thread has my reply on April 2019 that included:
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please consider evidence for New Testament audiences understanding κύριος (Lord) to be יהוה (Deity, God). The etymology of Jehovah reflects Jewish tradition of saying Adonai (אָדוֹן) whenever יהוה appeared (Jehovah is the YHVH consonants with Adonai vowels). Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek about 200 years prior to Jesus. Hebrew has 6,358 יהוה occurrences that were translated as κύριος 6,040 times and θεὸς 318 times in the Septuagint (LXX). The Jewish audience for Peter in Acts 2 had heard God's Holy name as κύριος (Lord) many, many times in the Synagogue weekly reading of scripture. If Peter had believed that Jesus was not God, Peter would not have used κύριος (Lord). Peter used κύριος (Lord) without modifying its well known Deity meaning. Hence hearers of Peter understood Deity declaration about Jesus.
Jewish people gathered for the annual Jewish feast of Shavu'ot in the Jewish Temple understood Jewish Peter to finish Acts 2 message with:
For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says, ‘The Lord God said to my Lord God, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt, that Lord God has made him both Lord God and Messiah—this Jesus whom you crucified!”
Result was ~3,000 Jews pierced in their hearts so they repented from their sins & believed in Yeshua, Jesus as Lord God, their Holy redeemer.
Rhetorical question: can the "originator of life" in Acts 3:15 really be a human being (spiritual descendent of God's breath of Life into dust) ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus On May 2019 your reply in this discussion ended with human wisdom idea:
@Bill_Coley One who COMES FROM God can't BE God, just as one SENT BY God can't BE God.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus President Obama example is a valid counterpoint that factually disagrees with human wisdom idea. Hence, the one sent by God can be God.
@Bill_Coley By definition, the words "President Obama" are EXACTLY THE SAME AS AND IDENTIFY EXACTLY THE SAME PERSON AS the words "President Obama." Just as the word "horse" identifies exactly the same species as the word "horse." Only by one's personal faith claim does the word "Jesus" identify exactly the same entity as the word "God." Why so? Because the word "Jesus" is NOT exactly the same as the word "God." Your example of President Obama sending President Obama, therefore, is NOT a "valid counterpoint" to my claim that the one sent by another can't be the other.
@Bill_Coley One identified as the sender is, by definition, NOT the same as the one (or thing) the sender sends. President Obama didn't send himself. He decided to lead the American delegation.
Definition of title "President Obama" is the American Leader (King) so the King deciding to send the King (self) is a leadership decision.
Upon further reflection, your idea "One who COMES FROM God can't BE God, just as one SENT BY God can't BE God." is a variant of faith belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." that simply disagrees with God's Good Shepherd decision to express God's Holy Love by sacrificing Himself in an unblemished male human body for Holy purpose of redeeming anyone who repents from sin & believes. The name Yeshua means "Lord God Salvation" ... you will call his name ‘Jesus,’ because he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21 (LEB)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Remember these Jewish religious leaders outwardly appeared righteous, which included obeying the Ten Commandments. If they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against murder (so publically would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant to them).
@Bill_Coley So when the Pharisees contended that Jesus could cast out demons "because he is empowered by the prince of demons"(Matthew 9.34), do you argue that they must have been correct because "[i]f they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against [bearing false witness] (so publically [sic] would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant [sic] to them)"?
Jewish religious leaders believed they were correct (according to their own words): The Jews answered and said to him, “Do we not correctly say that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” John 8:48 (LEB), but what were God's loving words (rebuke) spoken thru Jesus to them: Jesus replied, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me! But I do not seek my own glory. There is one who seeks and judges! Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never experience death forever.” John 8:49-51 (LEB)
Jewish religious leader appearance was described by God in Matthew 23:25-26 (LEB) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees—hypocrites!—because you cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence! Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please answer the existence question: "How can Jesus not be God ?" that really has three choices to consider: 1) God The Father and Jesus are two completely distinct spiritual entities OR 2) unified spiritually in One God while having eternally distinct voices OR 3) Jesus lied (so cannot be God).
@Bill_Coley In my view, the clear witness of the New Testament is that God and Jesus are completely distinct spiritual entities, Jesus having been a human being.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Does two completely distinct spiritual entities = two gods ?
@Bill_Coley No. One God. One human being called/sent/appointed by God (e.g. Acts 3.20, 10.42)
Your answer implies Jesus lied in John 17:5 & 17:24 (Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love at The Father's side before physical world existed), Thomas lied in John 20:28 "My Lord and my God!", and Peter lied in Acts 3:15 by describing Jesus as the originator of life. To me, Acts 10:42 means God appointed God to righteously judge the living and the dead (consistent with Jeremiah 23:6 where name for Jesus = Lord God Righteousness).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Appears respect and celebration of my faith cannot comprehend (believe) my direct answers. While Jesus is Lord God (same yesterday, today, & forever), Jesus loves & worships Father as God. Ascension to Holy Heaven allowed Jesus to complete atonement sin sacrifice in Abba's presence.
@Bill_Coley I accept and respect this as reflective of your personal faith, but claim there is no scriptural support for your view.
Puzzled by oxymoronic claim.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Sanhedrin's Messiah question is a diety question as the Jewish religious leaders remembered Lord God's covenant to David about forever ruler.
@Bill_Coley The promise to David about a "forever ruler" had NOTHING to do with a deity. 1 Kings 9.4-5 says "4 “As for you, if you will follow me with integrity and godliness, as David your father did, obeying all my commands, decrees, and regulations, 5 then I will establish the throne of your dynasty over Israel forever. For I made this promise to your father, David: ‘One of your descendants will always sit on the throne of Israel.’
@Bill_Coley The promise is that the throne of Israel will always be occupied by someone from David's line, NOT that it would be occupied by a deity.
If Solomon had sought God's heart like David, then Messianic son question in Matthew 22 could have been different: Now while the Pharisees were assembled, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “David’s.” He said to them, “How then does David, by the Spirit, call him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet” ’? If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” Matthew 22:41-45 (LEB) that was understood by the Jewish religious leaders as: Now while the Pharisees were assembled, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “David’s.” He said to them, “How then does David, by the Spirit, call him ‘Lord God,’ saying, ‘The Lord God said to my Lord God, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet” ’? If then David calls him ‘Lord God,’ how is he his son?” that simply disagrees with idea 'a "forever ruler" had NOTHING to do with a deity.'
Context of 1 Kings 9.1-9 reminds me of Jeremiah weeping as the last remant of Israel was being taken away plus Jerusalem being destroyed.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote
To me, One God has three distinct voices perfectly unified forever.
Sounds like one living being with 3-folf forked tongue ... ???? 😕
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
When original Jewish audience heard repetition of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (translated "on the ground" in LEB), they remembered mustard seed was sown with implication human being did the seed sowing plus original parable wording repeats ὅταν σπαρῇ (when sown) after "on the ground" repetition.
On what basis do you claim to know what "original Jewish audience[s]... remembered" or inferred when they heard a repetition of the phrase "on the ground"? More specifically, on which textual basis do you draw your conclusion? I see no textual basis for your claim.
Author of that article is not participating in this thread (article solution differs from your assertion). My conclusion is relevant for this discussion.
That the article's author is not participating in this thread has no bearing on my point, which was that the article to which I linked did NOT make the assertion you made.
Mark 4:30-32 (NLT) Jesus said, “How can I describe the Kingdom of God? What story should I use to illustrate it? It is like a mustard seed planted in the ground. It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of all garden plants; it grows long branches, and birds can make nests in its shade.” leaves out original language repetition of "on the ground" (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), "when" (ὅταν), "sown" (σπαρῇ) to describe "it" (mustard seed) as the smallest. Factually the parable wording in New Living Translation (NLT) is missing original language repetition. Also your idea "The parable contained an inaccurate assertion of fact" ignores "planted in the ground" context of the preceding NLT sentence.
In the Marcan passage, the phrase "on the ground" does NOT limit the variety of seed types from which Jesus crowns "the smallest of all seeds." In the text, the repetition of phrase "on the ground" instead identifies the current location of the compared seeds. The passage says a mustard seed, when on the ground, is the smallest of all seeds that are on the ground; it does NOT say mustard seeds are the smallest of all sown seeds, or of all seeds sown by people. The seeds' characteristic identified in the passage is their location when compared, NOT how they got to those locations.
Concur "the orchid seed is the smallest of all seeds on earth" is correct for 'in the air' propagation of several orchid varieties, but original language parable wording has not been proven false, which was also lacking in the article you linked on October 1 that mentioned three flower seed sizes smaller than mustard (has a footnote to an archived online discussion). Historical Socio-Rhetorical proof about Jewish planting in the ground lacks proof about smaller seeds being planted.
In the text, a seed's means of propagation is NOT the issue.
In fact, the silence of hostile hearers in original audience speaks volumes about original parable wording being true.
On what basis do you claim that the "hostile hearers" knew what seed was the smallest on earth?
Really curious about your direct answer to my previous relevant question: "Did God The Father err in parable wording for Jesus to speak ?"
No. But then again, Jesus spoke the parable, not God.
Related question is "Did Jesus (as God knowing seed sizes), agree with God The Father about parable wording so obediently spoke God's Words ?"
I disagree with the premise of your question because in my view, Jesus was not God.
To me, One God has three distinct voices perfectly unified forever. Jesus was at the side of The Father before creation of physical things, yet Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (has not and will not become The Father while intimately sharing One God's Spiritual Essence).
I respect and accept this as your personal faith statement, but it is one that, in my view, is not supported by Scripture.
Appears we are so close and yet so far from common ground about God's design for marriage "perfect unity" truly describing being "one".
I don't know what you mean when you say we're "so close and yet so far" on God's design for marriage.
To me, the mystery marriage of Christ and God believers (who do God's Will) shows perfect unity design: every unique believer unified in One Holy God while each believer retains individual identity, which allows One God to address every believer by name.
But the unity for which Jesus prays in John 17 is first and foremost between and among believers, not a unity between believers and God (e.g. Jesus prays that his followers "will all be one, just as you and I are one" (John 17.21), and that they will "be one as we are one" (John 17.22)). Clearly, Jesus believes his followers will be equipped for such unity by the "glory" he has given them, glory he says the Father has given him (John 17.22), but the unity itself is between followers, not between followers and God).
Puzzled by previous inconsistency as "in the past" refers to past actions while "of the prophet's day" implies present time frame. Concur neither of these phrases refer to future events that will happen according to God's perfect planning. Jeremiah 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, & 23.7-8 has future "will" occuring 12+ times. What contextual words in Jeremiah 23.3-8 show God planned future events to be fulfilled during the prophet's day ?
There's nothing inconsistent about the wording of my assertion when it's quoted in-full from my previous post: "The point of my post was that NEITHER phrase refers to future events; BOTH refer to events either in the prophet's time frame OR EARLIER, as do the prophet's other time references." My point was that for the prophet, his time references did not refer to events he believed would occur centuries or millennia into the future.
As for Jeremiah 23.3-8:
- Jeremiah 23.1: Sorrow awaits the shepherds of God's people. In my view, this is obviously a reference to the shepherds of the prophet's day, a punitive response to their failed leadership (Jeremiah 23.2).
- Jeremiah 23.3: God will gather the remnant driven to other countries as a result of the shepherds' poor leadership and appoint "responsible shepherds" to care for them (Jeremiah 23.4).
- Jeremiah 23.5-6: God will raise up a new shepherd from David's line. I read this as God's promise of a righteous shepherd who will replace the irresponsible ones currently in power. I don't believe the prophet intends for his audience to believe that God will improve their leadership, but not for several hundred years.
- Jeremiah 23.7-8: In the day of God's promised leadership reforms, people will reference both the exodus from Egypt and the return of people "from the north and from all the countries to which he had exiled them." When did people return "from the north"? After the 70 years which the prophet predicted would be the exile's length (Jeremiah 29.10). For the prophet, I consider that time frame to be of the prophet's day.
Jeremiah 22:10 was a perfect opportunity for God to say weep bitterly for Shallum, but God choose to instruct Jeremiah to weep bitterly for the one who goes away, which included Shallum in Jeremiah 22:11 along with each one in the "they will not return" in Jeremiah 22:27
To my reading of the text, Jeremiah 22.10-11 refers to one and only one person - the king Shallum (Jehoahaz) - while Jeremiah 22.27 refers to King Jehoiakin and his mother (Jeremiah 22.26). Both the NLT and the NIV use the pronoun "you" in v.27 to connote its reference to those two from the previous verse. In context, in my view, no other interpretation can be correct:
- Jeremiah 22.24 refers specifically to Jehoiachin.
- Jeremiah 22.25 tells Jehoiachin that he will be handed over to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
- Jeremiah 22.26 tells Jehoiachin that he and his mother will be expelled to and then die in a foreign country.
- Jeremiah 22.27 says "they" will not return to the land they long for. Who other than Jehoiachin and his mother can this promise refer to? In my view, no one.
Puzzled by no comment about plural pronoun they usage in Jeremiah 22:27, text counter-point to solely Shallum interpretation of Jeremiah 22:10
For the reasons just cited, the "they" in v.27 in my view refers to Jehoiakin and his mother. In the verse's context, it seemed to me, that reference was obvious, so I didn't mention it in my previous post.
Concur contextual words about Shallum in Jeremiah 22:11 shows God's perfect timing for will happen is "of the prophet's day" for Shallum, who ruled three months in Jerusalem (after death of Josiah) before being taken away to Egpyt as described in 2 Chronicles 36:1-4
Common ground.
Jeremiah 22:13-14 reads to me as Holy God's timeless Truth, which had direct application to you (Jehoiakim) in Jeremiah 22:15
As I read the text, Jeremiah 23.18 makes clear that the king described in vv.13-14 is Jehoiakim.
Concur: Jehoiakim ruled 11 years before being taken away to Babylon as described in 2 Chronicles 36:5-8 ... Concur: Jehoaichin ruled three months before being taken away to Babylon as described in 2 Chronicles 36:9-10
More common ground.
Jeremiah 22:27 was correct in my reply.
I misread the intention of your reference to v.27.
Whoever the verse refers to, he is or they are certainly kings of the prophet's day, which has always been my point.
The message of God to the (one) house of David began in Jeremiah 21:11 also includes Jeremiah 22:27 ... they will not return
For reasons already cited, I think "they" in v.27 refers to the Jehoiachin and his mother.
Question wording 'Who is "the one who goes away"?' embeds your study result (with your expected single person answer of Shallum).
No. I ask a natural follow-up question: "Weep bitterly for the one one who goes away." Well, who is the one who goes away? Nothing embedded there except natural and reasonable curiosity.
Modern day Iran, ancient Persia, is East of Jerusalem. Page 119 in the Rose 'Then and Now Bible Map Atlas' shows Nippur (Judean exile area in Babylon) being ~600 miles East of modern Israel with Persia being further East. Possibly Jeremiah 23:8 fulfillment is modern day Israel.
Babylon was more east than north, I acknowledge, but still latitudinally north of Judah. Assyria was more north than east.
Acts 2 has also been discussed many times. Appears verse by verse study has a resulting myopic fixation of a snippet in the middle of Peter's message in Acts 2, an ongoing basis for your belief about the "man" Jesus being distinct from Lord God. Classic eisegesis example is reading human spirit into the word "man" ἀνήρ (since do not want to believe a spiritual portion of One God could inhabit a physical male human body).
I appreciate your optometry diagnosis, but what I asked for was your understanding of ALL of Peter's preaching in Acts, not simply of a "snippet in the middle of Peter's message in Acts 2." I ask again. Where in ALL of Peter's preaching as reported in Acts do you find support for your claim that Peter believed Jesus was God?
Thankful for Jesus as Lord God Righteousness choosing to obey God The Father to do many miracles, works, and signs (lots more than recorded in scripture). Also Thankful for Jesus choosing the Joy set before Him to endure His male physical human body being brutally crucified as a Holy substitutionary sin sacrifice with all of One Lord God raising Jesus from the dead (imagine planning discussions before physical world creation included God's Glory & Love being experienced plus Joy as The Word of God would leave One God's Throne to inhabit a male human body).
I accept and respect this as your personal faith claim.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please consider evidence for New Testament audiences understanding κύριος (Lord) to be יהוה (Deity, God). The etymology of Jehovah reflects Jewish tradition of saying Adonai (אָדוֹן) whenever יהוה appeared (Jehovah is the YHVH consonants with Adonai vowels). Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek about 200 years prior to Jesus. Hebrew has 6,358 יהוה occurrences that were translated as κύριος 6,040 times and θεὸς 318 times in the Septuagint (LXX). The Jewish audience for Peter in Acts 2 had heard God's Holy name as κύριος (Lord) many, many times in the Synagogue weekly reading of scripture. If Peter had believed that Jesus was not God, Peter would not have used κύριος (Lord). Peter used κύριος (Lord) without modifying its well known Deity meaning. Hence hearers of Peter understood Deity declaration about Jesus.
That's not what the text says. In Acts 2.36 Peter says "God made" Jesus "Lord and Messiah." How could one who was already Lord (if translated as "God") be "made" to be "Lord" (i.e. God)? And how could one whom God "made" also be God? Did Peter's audience expect their "messiah" to be God or someone God raised up from among them?
Jewish people gathered for the annual Jewish feast of Shavu'ot in the Jewish Temple understood Jewish Peter to finish Acts 2 message with:
For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says, ‘The Lord God said to my Lord God, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt, that Lord God has made him both Lord God and Messiah—this Jesus whom you crucified!”
Result was ~3,000 Jews pierced in their hearts so they repented from their sins & believed in Yeshua, Jesus as Lord God, their Holy redeemer.
In my view, the text simply does not support this interpretation, in large part because this is not what the text says. Peter believed his audience needed to be told overtly that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and had made him "Lord and messiah," but did NOT believe he needed to tell them overtly that Jesus was God? That makes no sense to me. Hence, in my view, the fact that Peter NEVER says Jesus is God is dispositive evidence that Peter does not believe Jesus is God.
Rhetorical question: can the "originator of life" in Acts 3:15 really be a human being (spiritual descendent of God's breath of Life into dust) ?
Rhetorical answer: Yes, if that's what God wants.
Definition of title "President Obama" is the American Leader (King) so the King deciding to send the King (self) is a leadership decision.
Again, by definition, the one who sends is different from the one or thing the sender sends.
Upon further reflection, your idea "One who COMES FROM God can't BE God, just as one SENT BY God can't BE God." is a variant of faith belief assumption: "God cannot die. Jesus died. Jesus cannot be God." that simply disagrees with God's Good Shepherd decision to express God's Holy Love by sacrificing Himself in an unblemished male human body for Holy purpose of redeeming anyone who repents from sin & believes. The name Yeshua means "Lord God Salvation" ... you will call his name ‘Jesus,’ because he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21 (LEB)
No. My idea that one who comes from God can't be God is a natural outcome of the meaning of those words.
Jewish religious leaders believed they were correct (according to their own words): The Jews answered and said to him, “Do we not correctly say that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” John 8:48 (LEB), but what were God's loving words (rebuke) spoken thru Jesus to them: Jesus replied, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me! But I do not seek my own glory. There is one who seeks and judges! Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never experience death forever.” John 8:49-51 (LEB)
- You refer here to a different text from the one I referenced. I referred to Matthew 9.34. You refer to John 8.48. Do you have a comment on the verse I asked you about?
- You materially change your claim about the Jewish religious leaders. In a previous post, you argued the religious leaders must have been correct in their belief that Jesus had claimed to be God because "[i]f they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against murder (so publically [sic] would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant [sic] to them)." But in this most recent post, you say only that the leaders "believed" themselves to be correct. My point all along has been that just because the leaders BELIEVED they were correct does not necessarily mean that they actually WERE correct. It is possible that they were MISTAKEN in their belief.
- I repeat the question you didn't address: So when the Pharisees contended that Jesus could cast out demons "because he is empowered by the prince of demons" (Matthew 9.34), do you argue that they must have been correct because "[i]f they were mistaken, then they violated God's commandment against [bearing false witness] (so publically [sic] would appear to be unrighteous, sinners, which was abhorant [sic] to them)"? Or instead, do you argue that the Pharisees were mistaken in their belief that Jesus was "empowered by the prince of demons"? If you believe they were mistaken about that belief about Jesus, isn't it possible that they were mistaken about other beliefs about Jesus?
Your answer implies Jesus lied in John 17:5 & 17:24 (Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love at The Father's side before physical world existed), Thomas lied in John 20:28 "My Lord and my God!", and Peter lied in Acts 3:15 by describing Jesus as the originator of life. To me, Acts 10:42 means God appointed God to righteously judge the living and the dead (consistent with Jeremiah 23:6 where name for Jesus = Lord God Righteousness).
Correction: You infer that my answer suggests Jesus, Thomas, and Peter "lied." I intended no such implication.
You're of course welcome to interpret Acts 10.42 as you see fit, but the text, in my view, does not support your interpretation. The text says God appointed Jesus; it does not say "God appointed God." In my view, your interpretation expresses your faith claim, but does not express the meaning of the text.
Puzzled by oxymoronic claim.
Nothing oxymoronic. I disagree with your view and disagree that Scripture supports your view. But that does NOT mean I don't respect your view. I respect views different from mine, yours included.
If Solomon had sought God's heart like David, then Messianic son question in Matthew 22 could have been different:
My point concerned what I view as the clear meaning of 1 Kings 9.4-5 and its definition of what you had previously called the "Lord God's covenant to David about forever ruler." In my view, those verses make clear that the promise was that someone from David's line would always be on the throne, NOT that a deity would always be on the throne. [BTW, we should note that in 1 Kings 9.4-5, God delivers that reminder of the promise to David... to Solomon, David's son.]
AND FINALLY, the link to your previous post contained in the previous paragraph also includes a question you posed to me that I then asked you about in my previous post.
- Your question was this: "Wonder about your thoughts of Lord God Jesus being righteously angry with one who teaches Scriptures while not believing Jesus is Lord God?"
- The question I then asked you about that question was this: How is this question germane to the issues and biblical texts we're discussing?
- Since you didn't address my question in your most recent post, I ask it again.
-
“He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 16:15–17 (KJV 1900) The Son of God is the second person of the Trinity.
Unless revealed by God, people cannot know Jesus as God.
-
@Dave_L wrote:
“He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 16:15–17 (KJV 1900) The Son of God is the second person of the Trinity.
Unless revealed by God, people cannot know Jesus as God.
Hmn ... one problem: God here did NOT reveal to Peter that Jesus was God, but rather that the man Jesus was God's Messiah, God's Son !
-
The Messiah Would be God!
by Rich Robinson |October 16 2018
Prophecy: Isaiah 9">Isaiah 9:6–7 [Hebrew Bible, 9:5–6]
Fulfillment: Matthew 12:42; Luke 1:32–33, 79; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Romans 9:5; Philippians 4:7; Colossians 2:3;2 Thessalonians 3:3"> 2 Thessalonians 3:3
In the midst of a messianic section extending from Isaiah 7 to Isaiah 12, we find an extraordinary pair of verses:
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:6-7">Isaiah 9:6-7">Isaiah 9:6-7; Hebrew Bible, verses 5-6).
The child is given a name consisting of four exalted titles.
In these verses, a child is at the forefront of Isaiah’s prophecies, as it was in Isaiah 7:14. This time the child is given a name consisting of four exalted titles.
Is that child God?
This name has generated much discussion. Is it a description of the child himself? Then we would translate it as something like, “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” This means that the child himself is called Counselor, God, Father, and Prince.
Or, like many biblical names, is it a statement about God? Then we would translate it as something like, “Wonderful in Counsel is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” making the name into a sentence about God.
The Jewish Publication Society version of 1985, along with various other versions, translates the name as a statement about God. Interestingly, though, some Jewish traditions applied the names directly to the child. For example, Deuteronomy Rabbah says that “The Messiah is called by eight names,” and includes five references to the Isaiah verses, saying that among the Messiah’s names are Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, and Eternal Father of Peace (The Hebrew for each name, as found in Isaiah, is pele’, yo’etz, el, gibbor, avi’ ad shalom). The Midrash Pereq Shalom says that the Messiah’s name is Peace, quoting from these verses, “for it is said, Everlasting Father, Prince Peace.”1 The Targum to Isaiah—a translation into Aramaic—as well as the medieval commentator Ibn Ezra also refer the names to the child.2
The future king
It helps to look at the context of Isaiah 7–12, in which the prophet sees a future time of unparalleled prosperity, wisdom, and peace. We know that no period such as Isaiah describes was ever realized under any king of Israel or Judah. This is why as we move through the prophets and into the later books of the Old Testament, we find that there is still the hope for a future ruler and a future period of blessing and prosperity. By the end of the Old Testament, that ruler has still not arrived. This means that Isaiah 9 and similar passages awaited their fulfillment beyond the Old Testament, even if some human kings did display wisdom or brought a measure of peace.
And beyond the Old Testament is exactly where we find Isaiah 9:6-7 (Hebrew Bible, verses 5-6) fulfilled:
Luke 1:32-33">Luke 1:32-33 describes Jesus as ruler on the throne of David, exactly as Isaiah 9:7 (Hebrew Bible, v. 6) describes in the verse that follows immediately after 9:6-7. There Isaiah says about the child, “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom.” Luke, in similar words, says:
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:32-33)
The Prince of Peace
Luke 1:79 similarly tells about Jesus bringing peace, just as the child of Isaiah 9 is called the “Prince of Peace”: Jesus will “give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, [and will] guide our feet into the way of peace.” Jesus himself said in John 14:27, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” And Peter, in Acts 10:36, speaks about God and says, “As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ…”
The New Testament shows that Jesus is indeed the Mighty God who has come among us as a human being.
The New Testament throughout shows that Jesus is indeed the “Mighty God” who has come among us as a human being. Jesus does things only God can do, such as forgive sins and command nature to obey him. The writers of the New Testament apply directly to Jesus verses from the Old Testament that referred to God. And verses such as Romans 9:5 are explicit: “To them [the Jewish people] belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”
As to being wise in counsel (or, a Wonderful Counselor) Jesus spoke of himself in this way: “The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here” (Matthew 12:42). Colossians 2:3 tells us that in Jesus “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” And as for being the “Everlasting Father” (in Isaiah, a title that meant “protector”), Philippians 4:7 says that “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Messiah Jesus”—combining peace and protection together. And in 2 Thessalonians 3:3, we read that, “the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.”
Was Isaiah speaking of a human king of his time, as some believe? The kings of Israel never brought about the everlasting rule and time of justice and righteousness that Isaiah described. Some individual kings brought in temporary peace, some displayed wisdom, some displayed godly attributes. Many did not. But only the Messiah will do so permanently. Jesus the Messiah has begun that process, and will bring it to fruition.
Endnotes
1. Cited in Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), p. 33, n. 86
2. John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999), p. 239.
Share:
-
@Dave_L , many words that simply are beside the point and nothing more than trinity based conjecture, disregarding the actual statements to which reference is made or interpreting them by taking them out of context.
What about the meaning of a person's name? Is the person what the name says? There are quite many names of people found in Scripture where the name is formed by including forms of "Jah" or "el" (references to God, YHWH). Were those people actually God because "God" or "YHWH" were part of their name? NO!
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
