This is about God, not Yeshua.....
It establishes that we are not to acknowledge anyone else as Savior except God. The word Savior here is almost always written with a capital 'S' unlike Isaiah 19:20 which is not titular. We see the same capitalisation and titular inference in Matthew etc. There is a definite 'authority to save' implied, regardless of the instrument of that salvation. Combine that with the 'only one God' scenario and the "Son of Man" takes on a more profound meaning. If Jesus is not God, then God cannot take the credit as Savior. How can God give his 'only begotten' Son when he says he has no offspring (no other Gods)? The 'Son'(human body) he gave was himself.
God can and has saved his (creation) plenty of times and God didn't have to come down from heaven to do it.
Imagine for a minute that he did: Everything about Jesus's conduct would fit. The difference of opinion we have here is not in the finer detail of the interelation between Father and Son, which you say shows '2'. It is rather in the requirements of the Savior. If you don't think the Savior needed to be God, then your interpretaion kind of fits in a rough and ready way, with some glossing over of verses such as John 1:1. and Jesus constant blasphemy. If on the other hand only God was qualified for the job, then God in a human body subject to the legal system we are would be bound by the rules and commands he laid out for us and would have to follow them all, including prayer etc. So you see, nothing you say about the details even remotely challenges the diety of Jesus IF God himself was the only one qualified to do the job. That being the case, everything is as it should be.
There is NO information in any of the NT scriptures that says God sent himself.
John 1:1,14: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God ... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Phip 2:7-8 "..Who, being in very nature
God...but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.."
Col 2:9 "..For in Christ
all the fullness of the Diety lives in bodily form.."
So Yeshua was a saviour. We know he was.
Glad we agree that he was a savior. Now how did he save? He said himself that he had to be executed. John the baptist called him the 'lamb of God' who would take away the sins of the world. So he had to die, just as lambs were offered up at the temple. Why? Because the Law demanded it. It was either him or us. That's how he saved us.
So, whoever the lamb was, he had to be worth more than all of us put together, blameless (and thus free of deserving the penalty for himself) and of our type (son of Man/Adam). Whoever Jesus was he kept pointing out that he was indeed a physical man, in fact he wouldn't shut up about it .."the Son of Man.." every five minutes and so on. He also said he existed from ancient times and once shared God's glory (even though God says in the OT that he does not share his glory). He must have sounded up himself to some people.
When they asked John the baptist who he was, he quoted Isaiah 40:3 as if it applied to himself: "(I am) A voice of one calling in the desert prepare the way for the YHWH.." He didn't say he was preparing the way for an angel, or some odd creature of a type we know not, or even a God-offspring, including an eternal 'partial' God, all of which would have been blasphemous eg: Is44:8 "Is there any God besides me?.. I know not one.." and 43:10 "..before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me." It's the born of woman bit you seem to miss : "For God so loved the world that he gave his only [born of woman] Son.." You and I are not begotten sons of God. Jesus was the only one, yet according to Jesus there is only one God, so who was the Son? It should be obvious.
It took me a while...I mean a long time to try and figure out where you got this verse from. This is an incorrect translation. That translation is not in ANY of the bibles I have.
Luke 19:44
NIV: "They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
CEV: "Not one stone in your buildings will be left on top of another. This will happen because you did not see that God had come to save you. "
NLV: "There will not be one stone on another. It is because you did not know when God visited you."
TNIV: "They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
It would be nice to see the whole quote but you snipped pieces of the conversation and that does it no justice. The question was asked (Are you the Christ)...and here is what he (ACTUALLY) said...
Irrelevant. See Matt 16:16,17 for example. Jesus admitted he was the Christ.
Your ideas hang on the premise that someone lesser than God could be equal to all of us put together and also be blameless and also of our type (after our image) and so could die in our place. If such a sinless being can exist who is of our type and existed long before us, then why make flawed man? Why not just make more Jesus-beings??? This is one of many places where your argument bottoms out. Not to mention your view that the experts of the law of Jesus day were behaving in a disingenuous fashion throughout Jesus' ministry and the implication that the strict monotheism of Judaism never really existed. None of which can be supported by scripture or history. I'm yet to see an alternative take on this issue that convincingly accounts for all of the associated theology. Still, believe what you like. At least we agree he was the Savior.
Well, work is about to catch up with me in a big way over the next few weeks so that's it from me for now. Peace Dre.