Did Jesus say he was God???

[Yanni]

And yet.....the notion that the "sons of God" to come down and have sex with the daughters of man and bore children are found in your scripture. Does this mean the Torah contains elements of pagan practice and rituals in it as a norm?

Gen. 6:2,4

The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were good, and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose.

Vayir'u beney ha'Elohim et-benot ha'adam ki tovot henah vayikchu lahem nashim mikol asher bacharu.



The titans were on the earth in those days and also later. The sons of God had come to the daughters of man and had fathered them. [The titans] were the mightiest ones who ever existed, men of renown.

Hanefilim hayu va'arets bayamim hahem vegam acharey-chen asher yavo'u beney ha'Elohim el-benot ha'adam veyaledu lahem hemah hagiborim asher me'olam anshey hashem.



It might sound alien and strange to you but this is what is recorded in your scripture.

I don't know if you believe in the Oral Law which explains the Torah (Written Law), but the Oral Law (which God gave to the Jewish Nation at Mount Sinai together with the Written Law) explains that the word "Elo-him," as in that verse, refers to a position of authority. In fact, human judges are called "Elo-him." Accordingly, the Oral Law explains that the word "Elo-him" in that verse refers to the sons of the lords and judges of that time, not angelic beings. Without the Oral Law explaining the verse, of course you (and others) would come to the wrong conclusion and automatically assume that the name "Elo-him" in that verse refers to God, hence the "sons of God." But in this verse, it simply means "Sons of the judges/lords," referring to the prominent ones of that generation. So, no. There are no pagan concepts in the Torah.

 

[idav]

"God is not a man..."

Numbers 23:19

King James Bible
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Not exactly Jesus not saying God but it is God saying he isn't Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

I don't know if you believe in the Oral Law which explains the Torah (Written Law), but the Oral Law (which God gave to the Jewish Nation at Mount Sinai together with the Written Law) explains that the word "Elo-him," as in that verse, refers to a position of authority. In fact, human judges are called "Elo-him." Accordingly, the Oral Law explains that the word "Elo-him" in that verse refers to the sons of the lords and judges of that time, not angelic beings. Without the Oral Law explaining the verse, of course you (and others) would come to the wrong conclusion and automatically assume that the name "Elo-him" in that verse refers to God, hence the "sons of God." But in this verse, it simply means "Sons of the judges/lords," referring to the prominent ones of that generation. So, no. There are no pagan concepts in the Torah.

I asked for a Talmud excerpt where it claims that the "Sons of god" who produced the giants were merely sons of Cain....(why would mortals produce giants?)

And I don't see why this concept would be considered "Pagan", especially considering so much early Jewish literature that appears to confirm it. Who defines what 'pagan' is in this sense? Are these Angels being worshiped?

 

[Yanni]

I asked for a Talmud excerpt where it claims that the "Sons of god" who produced the giants were merely sons of Cain....(why would mortals produce giants?)

And I don't see why this concept would be considered "Pagan", especially considering so much early Jewish literature that appears to confirm it. Who defines what 'pagan' is in this sense? Are these Angels being worshiped?

The source is not in the Talmud; it's said by the Ramban (Nachmanides), and other great commentators on the Torah.

 

[jah59]

Did I not post about Philo's writings about what the Jews considered the "logos" to be?

Pre-eminent may imply above all, but the word Prototokos can also and usually does mean "First" and it still implies "first among". Romans 8:29 clearly uses it as such as "Firstborn among his brothers". As does Luke 2:7.

Even if the connotation is "Pre-eminent" it's metaphorical because it's like "adopted first son". And in Revelation 1:5 he is the "Firstborn among the dead', what does that mean?

And any way you spin it "Pre-eminent among Creation" still has the "among/of creation" part.

Hmm, you totally ignored the thrust of my point and half-way dealt with only the last sentence! More than once I’ve confronted individuals with clear reasoning and rather than accept it, they either totally ignore what I just presented to them or they return with incoherent gibberish and I realize that I’m wasting my time. Looks like you fall into the first category. Not that I've really seen it from her, but as I told Pegg, I feel the need to ask you one question, "If what you believe were not true, would you want to know it?"

 

[jah59]

Did I not post about Philo's writings about what the Jews considered the "logos" to be?

Pre-eminent may imply above all, but the word Prototokos can also and usually does mean "First" and it still implies "first among". Romans 8:29 clearly uses it as such as "Firstborn among his brothers". As does Luke 2:7.

Even if the connotation is "Pre-eminent" it's metaphorical because it's like "adopted first son". And in Revelation 1:5 he is the "Firstborn among the dead', what does that mean?

And any way you spin it "Pre-eminent among Creation" still has the "among/of creation" part.

By the way, I didn't mean to ignore what you said by any means, but in case there's really any doubt, all that you said about what it could mean doesn't really matter, because it's meaning is already clearly defined following the word because.

 

[look3467]

Yanni

Who would you say is your spiritual Father? By what name?

By that name was the Ten Commandments by Moses addressed to the children of Israel?

Because of the strictness of the Ten commandments, can you find redemption by it?

Is there anyone redeemable with or without the Ten Commandments?

If not why?

Would you say that God, your Father led you to believe that there was no other solution for the redemption of our souls, when Jesus was introduced as the Messiah, save the Ten Commandments?

Or that the "real" Messiah, yet to arrive will in effect save the nation of Israel as promised?

The reason for my line of questioning is to establish the foundation set up by the Israels Father via the Ten commandments, establishing ownership, not only of the Ten commandments but of Israels heart as well, excluding the rest of the world.

The relationship of the Father God with Israel is as "the first born son", the beneficiaries of the Father's inheritance, as like it was in a picture of: Cain and Able, Esau and Jacob, Ismael and Issac, Ruben and Joseph and Israel and Jesus where the first shall be last and the last shall be first thing.

Where God the creator, who created all there is deed His inheritance to the "first born" and none to the second?

But what if, the second became the first, as with Esau and Jacob, as with Joseph the youngest of 11 brothers, as with Ismael and Issac, and finally as with Israel and Jesus, would God the Father honor it?

The very Old Testament gives us a picture of just that being the works of the Father, or in other words, as written : "Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

Before you or anyone else has a hernia over that last sentence, let me explain.

The "Ye are of your father" shows the relationship between the Father and the nation of Israel as the chosen vessels to carry and present the Fathers laws to the world.

God is your Father, according to Jewish texts.

Now, for the last part of that sentence quote "the lusts of your father ye will do" means Israels being zealous for the law of the Father, to do all that was commanded by Moses to do without exception.

Interjection: The creation was marred in the making: Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

"The again" is the key words and the central theme of the whole of the Old testament and the new testrament as a compilation of Jewish authors of books and letters, (Now the Bible) was primarily addressed to the first born: Israel.

Jesus said: Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Meaning, that the bread was meant primarily for Israel and not the Gentile world?

What Jesus not being compliant with your Fathers lusts (Wishes) in that statement?

That brings us to the word "again" signifying a recreation of what already existed but made anew to not only included the first born, but the second born as one and the same.

The only possible way that God the Father could accomplish such a feat was to He Himself represent mankind as mankind (A body of flesh), sacrifice it rather than the whole of humanity, thus the liberation of all humanity as one, not many, not first or last but as one unit, the whole of humanity.

There could not exist any human being, in the whole of humanity that could deliver it's own soul from the sentence of eternal death, save God alone.

Jesus, could not say He was God because He couldn't, if He were to fulfill the whole of the law, and become disobedient, (Not my will but thine) but had to willingly give up His life for the love of the Father, your Father in trade for the salvation of the world.

That is a clear picture, simply put without all the clouds of human imaginations obscuring the head as in the reason and purpose for circumcision.Cutting the foreskin (clouds of human confusion, imaginations,practices,laws and unnecessary animal sacrifices) revealing the head (Truth).

I close with this one verse which states that the power to save rests only in one:Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

"The only possible way that God the Father could accomplish such a feat was to He Himself represent mankind as mankind (A body of flesh), sacrifice it rather than the whole of humanity, thus the liberation of all humanity as one, not many, not first or last but as one unit, the whole of humanity."

Where does it say that the Father has to sacrifice himself?

 

[Shermana]

By the way, I didn't mean to ignore what you said by any means, but in case there's really any doubt, all that you said about what it could mean doesn't really matter, because it's meaning is already clearly defined following the word because.

What are you trying to say exactly?

 

[Yanni]

Yanni

Who would you say is your spiritual Father? By what name?

By that name was the Ten Commandments by Moses addressed to the children of Israel?

Because of the strictness of the Ten commandments, can you find redemption by it?

Is there anyone redeemable with or without the Ten Commandments?

If not why?

Would you say that God, your Father led you to believe that there was no other solution for the redemption of our souls, when Jesus was introduced as the Messiah, save the Ten Commandments?

Or that the "real" Messiah, yet to arrive will in effect save the nation of Israel as promised?

The reason for my line of questioning is to establish the foundation set up by the Israels Father via the Ten commandments, establishing ownership, not only of the Ten commandments but of Israels heart as well, excluding the rest of the world.

The relationship of the Father God with Israel is as "the first born son", the beneficiaries of the Father's inheritance, as like it was in a picture of: Cain and Able, Esau and Jacob, Ismael and Issac, Ruben and Joseph and Israel and Jesus where the first shall be last and the last shall be first thing.

Where God the creator, who created all there is deed His inheritance to the "first born" and none to the second?

But what if, the second became the first, as with Esau and Jacob, as with Joseph the youngest of 11 brothers, as with Ismael and Issac, and finally as with Israel and Jesus, would God the Father honor it?

The very Old Testament gives us a picture of just that being the works of the Father, or in other words, as written : "Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

Before you or anyone else has a hernia over that last sentence, let me explain.

The "Ye are of your father" shows the relationship between the Father and the nation of Israel as the chosen vessels to carry and present the Fathers laws to the world.

God is your Father, according to Jewish texts.

Now, for the last part of that sentence quote "the lusts of your father ye will do" means Israels being zealous for the law of the Father, to do all that was commanded by Moses to do without exception.

Interjection: The creation was marred in the making: Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

"The again" is the key words and the central theme of the whole of the Old testament and the new testrament as a compilation of Jewish authors of books and letters, (Now the Bible) was primarily addressed to the first born: Israel.

Jesus said: Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Meaning, that the bread was meant primarily for Israel and not the Gentile world?

What Jesus not being compliant with your Fathers lusts (Wishes) in that statement?

That brings us to the word "again" signifying a recreation of what already existed but made anew to not only included the first born, but the second born as one and the same.

The only possible way that God the Father could accomplish such a feat was to He Himself represent mankind as mankind (A body of flesh), sacrifice it rather than the whole of humanity, thus the liberation of all humanity as one, not many, not first or last but as one unit, the whole of humanity.

There could not exist any human being, in the whole of humanity that could deliver it's own soul from the sentence of eternal death, save God alone.

Jesus, could not say He was God because He couldn't, if He were to fulfill the whole of the law, and become disobedient, (Not my will but thine) but had to willingly give up His life for the love of the Father, your Father in trade for the salvation of the world.

That is a clear picture, simply put without all the clouds of human imaginations obscuring the head as in the reason and purpose for circumcision.Cutting the foreskin (clouds of human confusion, imaginations,practices,laws and unnecessary animal sacrifices) revealing the head (Truth).

I close with this one verse which states that the power to save rests only in one:Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Blessings, AJ

Honestly, I have to say I couldn't follow one word you said; it wasn't written clear enough. In any case, I strongly suggest you take a look at this article: Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus?. This will explain why I do not agree with anything you said. I will spare the other readers of this forum by not quoting the entire article, so please read it and let me know what you think.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The only possible way that God the Father could accomplish such a feat was to He Himself represent mankind as mankind (A body of flesh), sacrifice it rather than the whole of humanity, thus the liberation of all humanity as one, not many, not first or last but as one unit, the whole of humanity.

This is not how the OT portrays "God". The god in the OT killed and saved his creation without the need to become that which he created. Your idea of a god that has to become mortal seems to echo that of the Greeks and other pagan cultures. I've found nothing in your NT scripture where the biblical Yeshua ever expressed he was "God" in the flesh to save his creation.

 

[Yanni]

This is not how the OT portrays "God". The god in the OT killed and saved his creation without the need to become that which he created. Your idea of a god that has to become mortal seems to echo that of the Greeks and other pagan cultures. I've found nothing in your NT scripture where the biblical Yeshua ever expressed he was "God" in the flesh to save his creation.

A further problem is that Judaism (or the OT God) NEVER allows human sacrifice. So God, Who doesn't allow human sacrifice, and Who said numerous times in the Torah that He would never change His mind about His commandment, because He is not a man that He should relent, nor the son of man that He should lie, couldn't possibly have sacrificed Himself to save His creations! You're absolutely right; this whole concept of God literally having a son and impregnating a human is purely a pagan concept. This is just one of the many examples where the founders of Christianity invented ideas and concepts that they needed to support their new doctrine (many of those ideas differing drastically from the religion they base themselves on).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A further problem is that Judaism (or the OT God) NEVER allows human sacrifice. So God, Who doesn't allow human sacrifice, and Who said numerous times in the Torah that He would never change His mind about His commandment, because He is not a man that He should relent, nor the son of man that He should lie, couldn't possibly have sacrificed Himself to save His creations! You're absolutely right; this whole concept of God literally having a son and impregnating a human is purely a pagan concept. This is just one of the many examples where the founders of Christianity invented ideas and concepts that they needed to support their new doctrine (many of those ideas differing drastically from the religion they base themselves on).

I agree...:yes:

 

[Shermana]

From Isaiah 53....

and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

But there's that mysterious inexplainable verse 10 that doesn't make sense with the human sacrifice thing....

10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,

Makes his life a guilt offering?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

From Isaiah 53....
But there's that mysterious inexplainable verse 10 that doesn't make sense with the human sacrifice thing....
Makes his life a guilt offering?

There are 4 reasons for guilt offerings:

1] if a witness failed to testify or report sin [Lev 5vs1-13]
2] sinned unintentionally against holy things [Lev 5vs15,16; 22vs14-16]
3] negligence [Lev 5vs17-19]
4] deceive another [Lev 6vs 2-5; Ex 22vs7-13; Deut 5v20; Num 5vs6,7; 5v8]

So, guilt offerings were offered because of sin. [Guilt of any sort involves sin]
The guilt offering of Isaiah [53vs10-12] would be in order to restore or recover rights for the wrongdoer [us] and thus bring us relief from the penalty of sin.

Jesus 'offering' would thus pay the price for our sins. -1st John 1v7 B.

 

[Yanni]

There are 4 reasons for guilt offerings:

1] if a witness failed to testify or report sin [Lev 5vs1-13]
2] sinned unintentionally against holy things [Lev 5vs15,16; 22vs14-16]
3] negligence [Lev 5vs17-19]
4] deceive another [Lev 6vs 2-5; Ex 22vs7-13; Deut 5v20; Num 5vs6,7; 5v8]

So, guilt offerings were offered because of sin. [Guilt of any sort involves sin]
The guilt offering of Isaiah [53vs10-12] would be in order to restore or recover rights for the wrongdoer [us] and thus bring us relief from the penalty of sin.

Jesus 'offering' would thus pay the price for our sins. -1st John 1v7 B.

No, it wouldn't and didn't, because God Himself, in the "OT" (Torah) states that human sacrifice is forbidden (that's why we sacrificed animals instead of ourselves), and that same God also said that He would never change His mind about His commandments, because He is not man that He should relent, nor the son of man that He should lie.

 

[Shermana]

No, it wouldn't and didn't, because God Himself, in the "OT" (Torah) states that human sacrifice is forbidden (that's why we sacrificed animals instead of ourselves), and that same God also said that He would never change His mind about His commandments, because He is not man that He should relent, nor the son of man that He should lie.

So explain Isaiah 53:10 then. Why would he have other people's iniquities laid upon him like a goat or bull?

 

[Yanni]

So explain Isaiah 53:10 then. Why would he have other people's iniquities laid upon him like a goat or bull?

Okay, read this from http://www.aish.com/atr/84010907.html:

SUFFERING SERVANT Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

 

[Shermana]

Okay, read this from http://www.aish.com/atr/84010907.html:

SUFFERING SERVANT Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

I have no idea where my question was answered in that passage. Let's try this again. What is the actual meaning of Isaiah 53:10? Why will he "bear the iniquities"? If it's supposed to be a representation of the Jews themselves as opposed to a description of the Moshiach, why are they a guilt offering?

 

[Yanni]

I have no idea where my question was answered in that passage. Let's try this again. What is the actual meaning of Isaiah 53:10? Why will he "bear the iniquities"? If it's supposed to be a representation of the Jews themselves as opposed to a description of the Moshiach, why are they a guilt offering?

Read this and your questions will most probably be answered: Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant.