Did Jesus say he was God???

[look3467]

Jesus's teachings and sacrifice are the way, truth, and life. Adherence to his teaching is the way one stays righteous and keeps their soul undefiled. Belief in his sacrifice and place as the Messiah are part of the method of redemption for past sins, so long as one does not keep on sinning. As the one who sits at the Right hand of the Throne and entrusted with Earthly authority, he is the gatekeeper and as the highest of the angels, determines who is and isn't worthy and acts as the advocate and attorney of souls. Nonetheless, the Father has the final say.>>>Shermana

That is all fine for you who has been privileged with such information, but what about that soul that lives 10,000 years before Christ.......what is his souls status?

Did God accidentally forget to save that soul to?

Place your self in that souls place, would you know what you know now? Could you live righteously not having any knowledge of who or what God is?

Fortunately, you and I have been gifted to having access to knowledge of God and His dealings with mankind.
He does warn us though quote "Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Hmmmm....application is of Jesus, yet still applies to us as well.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

That is all fine for you who has been privileged with such information, but what about that soul that lives 10,000 years before Christ.......what is his souls status?

They were reincarnated. Like how Origen believed. The concept of permanent hell is a later Church doctrine. As for being "Saved", everyone is judged according to their works, they spend time in Firy Purgatory or the "Bosom of Abraham" as it's called based on their works before they are incarnated again. The concept of pre-existence is hinted at in the scripture. Many Jews believed in Reincarnation, and still do today. The disciples asked of the Blind man, who was born blind from birth what sin he had committed to be born blind. But what does any of this have to do with the Trinity? What does this have to do with Jesus saying he's G-d?

Did God accidentally forget to save that soul to?

I think if anything those of the traditional interpretation have this problem of who was saved before Jesus in their Theology, not mine. But this is about the Trinity and Jesus declaring to be G-d.

Place your self in that souls place, would you know what you know now? Could you live righteously not having any knowledge of who or what God is?

The Biblical definition of "righteousness" is doing that which is rightful and lawful to G-d, so it would be impossible to do what G-d wants without knowing Him, but I also believe people have a natural built in sense of sin and good works.

Fortunately, you and I have been gifted to having access to knowledge of God and His dealings with mankind.

I think back in the day many people had this understanding or had access to this information through Oracles and prophets. However, we have different interpretations so one of us is not making correct use of their access.

He does warn us though quote "Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

And what is required exactly?

Hmmmm....application is of Jesus, yet still applies to us as well.

How do you think it still applies in your theology as opposed to my works-based theology?

 

[look3467]

Okay, but I don't see how that question has much to do with the Virgin birth or whether he declared to be G-d. Are you saying by declaring to be the way, truth, and life that he's declaring to be G-d?>>>Shermana

It has everything to do with His virgin birth. "God doubles things twice before He brings it to pass" fits His salvation plan.

You see, the creation of mankind required as a consequence of having knowledge/intelligence, separation from God as gods.

That resulted in a loss, or death by separation.

God then by virgin birth, Jesus, a second type of Adam, this time not of the spirit of man but of God, was not separated as we, but was as God redeeming His own creation.

First Adam, second Adam and then the third Adam, which is the new creature after Jesus. Remember, God doubles twice.

The only way that God could offer a sacrifice to save His own creation was to have mankind offer it up for Him.

Enter: His chosen people.

To His chosen God gave them Moses and the law. God was their Father in a direct relationship with them.

For anybody to come with a different message than what was given them to believe in would be means for stoning according to the law.

God in Jesus then designed His chosen to be "cut off" from that relationship and require His chosen to go through Jesus instead.

Well......not so fast.......Israel was not about to accept Jesus as their Savior for God alone was their savior.

Well, guess what? Now we have the means by which God's offering would get executed. And who else but the High Priests.

In the execution of God's designed works, Israel is found guiltless. Dis Jesus not state: Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

See, guiltless for adhering to the law as the Father had instructed them.

A believer in God's redemption plan instantly becomes a new creature.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

They were reincarnated. Like how Origen believed. The concept of permanent hell is a later Church doctrine. As for being "Saved", everyone is judged according to their works, they spend time in Firy Purgatory or the "Bosom of Abraham" as it's called based on their works before they are incarnated again. The concept of pre-existence is hinted at in the scripture. Many Jews believed in Reincarnation, and still do today. The disciples asked of the Blind man, who was born blind from birth what sin he had committed to be born blind. But what does any of this have to do with the Trinity? What does this have to do with Jesus saying he's G-d?>>>Shermana

Agreed that the concept of heaven and hell is a church doctrine, because the reasoning is that if people understood the salvation is of God and not because of our own merits would stop trying to live just and right.

That is what the church fathers wrestled with. So fear of hell rather than love for God was a motive.
As far as reincarnation, that's up to you what you want to believe on it. But as for me, I choose to believe that "I am" one in Christ, as an individual entity, by God's design, with a name and a living soul, not as a man but as a new creature awaiting deportation to that heavenly realm once and for all time. Not second chances.

A blind man born is, as a leaper, is as a deaf and dumb, is as a a murderer, a rapist.
What sins committed are limited to the flesh, what God did was save the soul.
The story of the Potter: Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Hath He not also the power to destroy both, or save both?

God is love!

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

It has everything to do with His virgin birth. "God doubles things twice before He brings it to pass" fits His salvation plan.

What does his virgin birth or doubling things twice have anything to do with Jesus saying he was G-d?

You see, the creation of mankind required as a consequence of having knowledge/intelligence, separation from God as gods.

I don't think I understand your point, but I agree that as the "Wisdom" personified, Jesus was the Co-creator and was a god, along with the "Angels".

That resulted in a loss, or death by separation.

How so?

God then by virgin birth, Jesus, a second type of Adam, this time not of the spirit of man but of God, was not separated as we, but was as God redeeming His own creation.

Explain your logic why G-d would need to himself incarnate to redeem his own creation instead of sending the Chief Angel?

First Adam, second Adam and then the third Adam, which is the new creature after Jesus. Remember, God doubles twice.

What does that have to do with Jesus saying he was G-d?

The only way that God could offer a sacrifice to save His own creation was to have mankind offer it up for Him.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Enter: His chosen people.

I think His chosen people were meant for quite more of a purpose than just offering up "Himself" as you think Jesus was as a sacrifice.

To His chosen God gave them Moses and the law. God was their Father in a direct relationship with them.

On this I agree.

For anybody to come with a different message than what was given them to believe in would be means for stoning according to the law.

Rightfully so.

God in Jesus then designed His chosen to be "cut off" from that relationship and require His chosen to go through Jesus instead.

Besides the "Phase 2: ?" missing in your reasoning of why G-d needed to incarnate personally for this to happen, how do you explain what Jesus said about "I have come only for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" if his plan was to cut them off? Is this supercessionism? How were the Chosen People "Cut off" if all the earliest Christians were Jews, and before Paul, teaching obedience to the Torah?

Well......not so fast.......Israel was not about to accept Jesus as their Savior for God alone was their savior.

Depends on the meaning of savior. In Obadiah 1:28 G-d says that He sends saviors. Thus, he is THE savior who saves by sending saviors. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to indicate that the deliverer will be a man, just like how other deliverers were men. The word "Savior" here is a bit murky, why don't you explain what you think "Savior" actually means.

Well, guess what? Now we have the means by which God's offering would get executed. And who else but the High Priests.

The High Priests certainly had the most to gain by trying to quiet this dissent against their artificial, unscriptural rulings.

In the execution of God's designed works, Israel is found guiltless. Dis Jesus not state: Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

What's that got to do with Jesus saying He was G-d though?

See, guiltless for adhering to the law as the Father had instructed them.

How were they adhering to the Law? They put an innocent man to death who violated none of their actual Law except as the Pharisees and Sadduccees were reinterpreting it. It seems Jesus was saying they were mostly ignorant of what they were doing.

A believer in God's redemption plan instantly becomes a new creature.

Instantly? Explain what you think this "new creature" acts like and does and then we'll compare this to the average "Christian".

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

And how do we determine who exactly is "in Christ"?

 

[look3467]

I think if anything those of the traditional interpretation have this problem of who was saved before Jesus in their Theology, not mine. But this is about the Trinity and Jesus declaring to be G-d.>>>Shermana

How about an answer as to who was saved prior to Jesus?

Isa 24:22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Prior to Jesus as God, there was no salvation by any means regardless of what one believed.
So when they lived and died, they were all gathered together in a holding place, a prison if you will, until they would also be visited as we were by Jesus.

If there was an incarnation, there would be no prison and no visitation.

But then again, God's plan would not have included an offering, His offering.

The story of Cain an Abel. Was not the offering of Abel that was accepted over Cains?

Well, that was a picture of Jesus and the nation of Israel.

Who had the better offering, Jesus or the nation of Israel?

Did Jesus not cut off Israel with "I am the way"....meaning offering them up as Cain?

Did not God reject His offering?

Did God then accept Israels offering of Jesus as Abel's?

See the parallel? But God cut them both off so that of them a new creation would emerge. Ref: Isa 9:14 Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.

After which Paul states: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


See how wonderful the works of God are?

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

What does his virgin birth or doubling things twice have anything to do with Jesus saying he was G-d?>>>Shermana

Jesus as God is your stumbling block.
Ref: Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Appointed?
Sounds like God blinding the eyes and hearts of the nation of Israel by the law in order for God to accomplish His work as God in Jesus.

Ref: Blinding, Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

The opportunity is now to become un-blinded, is to accept Jesus as God and be healed.
Not an easy task for you but promising.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

How about an answer as to who was saved prior to Jesus?

Isa 24:22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

That's talking about Earthly exile, punishments, and capture, completely different subject. I understand Cherry picking out of context is a speciality of "Christians", but try to at least be aware what the actual context of the verse is when you're discussing it objectively. Do I need to post the whole chapter? Why do you suppose it says G-d will even punish the "powers in heaven"?

Prior to Jesus as God, there was no salvation by any means regardless of what one believed.

So when G-d is called "Savior" what is being referred to in the OT? What kinds of "Saviors" were sent in Obadiah 1:28?

So when they lived and died, they were all gathered together in a holding place, a prison if you will, until they would also be visited as we were by Jesus.

Except your interpretation of that verse is completely out of context and has nothing to do with what's being conveyed there. Again, do we need to go over the whole chapter or will you concede that it's not saying anything close to what you think it's saying?

If there was an incarnation, there would be no prison and no visitation.

Huh?

But then again, God's plan would not have included an offering, His offering.

That's what Isaiah 53:10 is all about.

The story of Cain an Abel. Was not the offering of Abel that was accepted over Cains?

Explain what that has to do with anything here.

Well, that was a picture of Jesus and the nation of Israel.

Explain how that in any way corrolates, Cain's offering was rejected as the commentaries suggest because he didn't pick the finest of his crop as Abel did with his flock. I can see how the "Perfect being" may corrolate to a perfect sacrifice but it in no way demonstrates that Jesus was G-d.

Who had the better offering, Jesus or the nation of Israel?

Jesus initially didn't want to offer himself, he said "Take this cup from me if you will". But this has nothing to do with Jesus saying He was G-d, or in how to interpret what the Sacrifice of Isaiah 53:10 is to mean.

Did Jesus not cut off Israel with "I am the way"....meaning offering them up as Cain?

Please show me a single link that in any way ties this to Cain's sacrifice.

Did not God reject His offering?

G-d rejected Cain's offering yes.

Did God then accept Israels offering of Jesus as Abel's?

Jesus wasn't offered by Israel as an offering in the same way that Abel free will offered Jesus. At this point your interpretation is so far off base, I haven't seen any site that mentions anything remotely like this. Do you have any?

See the parallel? But God cut them both off so that of them a new creation would emerge. Ref: Isa 9:14 Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.

Again, if G-d cut off Israel, he wouldn't have had nothing but Jews as the members of the earliest Church of Jesus, and he wouldn't have had Jesus say "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel'. Again I ask if you are supercessionist.

After which Paul states: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

One of the reasons why I don't think Paul was a true apostle, he basically denied what Jesus said about coming for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, and that Gentiles were meant to be grafts to the Olive Tree of Israel. And then there's arguments like of F.R. Mcguire that Paul didn't even write Galatians, but we'll stick to it as authentic for now.

See how wonderful the works of God are?

What works of G-d are you referring to here exactly?

 

[look3467]

I don't think I understand your point, but I agree that as the "Wisdom" personified, Jesus was the Co-creator and was a god, along with the "Angels".>>>Shermana

Zec 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

Does that not agree with the next verses: Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Ki 8:20 And the LORD hath performed his word that he spake, and I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.

Psa 127:1 <A Song of degrees for Solomon.> Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

Jesus built the house of the Lord, not a physical house as did Solomon, but a spiritual house.

Who but God Himself could build such a house?

Find me one that could and I have a bridge to sell you.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

That's talking about Earthly exile and capture, completely different subject. I understand Cherry picking out of context is a speciality of "Christians", but try to at least be aware what the actual context of the verse is when you're discussing it objectively. Do I need to post the whole chapter?>>>Shermana

Application noted.

But, as I am trying to point out from the get go that the spiritual application of that same verse is not been seen and as proof of that is my being judged as cherry picking.

When the works of God are understood as His works, then the bible comes alive with spiritual truths found sprinkled in all of His words, both in the old and the new testaments.

Joh 9:25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

See physically or spiritually?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

Jesus as God is your stumbling block.

How about the more direct interpretation that Jesus's teachings were the stumbling block to the Pharisees and Sadducees? I love how Trinitarians insert Trinitarian interpretation into anything they possibly can, but why would anyone objectively reading it find it as "Jesus as G-d"?

Ref: Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Please explain why that's referring to Jesus as G-d incarnate instead of a reference to someone's teachings conflicting with those who follow false interpretations. There is no reason whatsoever to interpret that as anything except regarding teachings, not as a being of G-d incarnated.

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Appointed?
Sounds like God blinding the eyes and hearts of the nation of Israel by the law in order for God to accomplish His work as God in Jesus.

What does that have anything to do with Jesus being G-d? You just put your own presumptive spin into the verse which otherwise refers to people at odds with his actual teachings.

Ref: Blinding, Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

So I assume you believe that has nothing to do with Jesus's actual teachings and that it somehow refers to him being G-d instead?

The opportunity is now to become un-blinded, is to accept Jesus as God and be healed.

How about the opprotunity is to actually obey and follow Jesus's teachings instead?

Not an easy task for you but promising.

I imagine you following Jesus's teachings and reading the text without Trinitarian presumptions that don't fit the text at all would be much less easy.

Blessings, AJ[/quote]

 

[Shermana]

Zec 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

The word should read "like gods", "As the angel of the LORD". Unless you think G-d is the Angel of G-d somehow. And even if you read it as "God", the word is "Like God", not "As God", big difference.

Does that not agree with the next verses: Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Not at all. Please explain why it would. It's saying that the Chosen one will have great power, especially power that Jesus says was "given to Him". Do you understand what "given" means?

1Ki 8:20 And the LORD hath performed his word that he spake, and I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.

That verse in no way backs what you're saying. Why do Trinitarians make a big deal of every time the word "I am" is used in a sentence regardless of its connotation, especially when the actually name is "I shall be"? If I said "I am going out tonight", am I saying that I'm G-d?

Psa 127:1 <A Song of degrees for Solomon.> Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

Are you just throwing out verses at random that have nothing to do with what you're saying and hoping they'll stick?

Jesus built the house of the Lord, not a physical house as did Solomon, but a spiritual house.

In a way.

Who but God Himself could build such a house?

How about the Incarnation of the Highest Angel? Why must it be G-d himself?

Find me one that could and I have a bridge to sell you.

So again, how about the Highest of the Angels incarnated instead? Are you saying an Angel couldn't build such a house?

 

[Shermana]

Application noted.

But, as I am trying to point out from the get go that the spiritual application of that same verse is not been seen and as proof of that is my being judged as cherry picking.

You can make a "Spiritual Application" out of practically anything. Were you even aware of what the direct, immediate plain reading context was until I pointed it out?

When the works of God are understood as His works, then the bible comes alive with spiritual truths found sprinkled in all of His words, both in the old and the new testaments.

I would think I already regard the Direct works of G-d as the works of G-d, do you mean to say when your interpretation of the works are G-d are agreed upon that the Bible comes alive? As for "Spiritual truths", one man's interpretation of a "spiritual truth" obviously may not be another's.

Joh 9:25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

See physically or spiritually?

Physically is the direct context in mind. You can spiritualize practically anything. Perhaps he also did see that Jesus was the Christ and his teachings were true, but there's no way around of reading it directly that he says "I see" as in "I was once physically blind, but I got my physical sight back". He was declaring a miracle. If there was some spiritual context with the "Now I see" part, then it only has to do with the man saying that Jesus was Christ.

 

[look3467]

So when G-d is called "Savior" what is being referred to in the OT? What kinds of "Saviors" were sent in Obadiah 1:28?>>>Shermana

You meant Oba 1:21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

Supposed saviors of Israel were the High priests who ruled by the law, come up to mount Zion. They were a "hill", a "mountain" of authority of which Jesus submitted to.

To "to judge the mount of Esau. "Esau hated" Ref:Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Jesus is as Jacob, second born, yet loved, but as Easu,(as mankind having lost its inheritance). (first born is hated, thus judged.)

Mic 4:8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

The new Jerusalem. Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Jesus as God built that City which is the New Jerusalem, therefore, God as Savior.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

You can make a "Spiritual Application" out of practically anything. Were you even aware of what the direct, immediate plain reading context was until I pointed it out? >>>Shermana

True! But one has to look at not what is physical to see God, but what is spiritual.

God's house was built of the physical but created in the spiritual.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Is God not spirit? Why then should I try to see Him in the physical? Do I require a sign?
No, it is by faith.

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

Blessings, AJ
P.S. I shall continue tomorrow.

 

[Shermana]

True! But one has to look at not what is physical to see God, but what is spiritual.

And what exactly does "Spiritual" mean?

God's house was built of the physical but created in the spiritual.

The same could be said for everything.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Meaning that people are made acceptable to G-d through the teachings of Jesus and belief in his sacrifice and being the Moshiach.

Is God not spirit? Why then should I try to see Him in the physical? Do I require a sign? No, it is by faith.

What did anything I say have to do with seeing G-d physically? I see evidence of G-d's existence and handiwork through the Material world. Seeing someone's interpretation of Jesus is another story.

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

What do you suppose the context is of why and what Jews are looking for miraculous signs for?

 

[Shermana]

You meant Oba 1:21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

Yeah 1:21, my bad.

Supposed saviors of Israel were the High priests who ruled by the law, come up to mount Zion. They were a "hill", a "mountain" of authority of which Jesus submitted to.

The word "Savior" means exactly what it means, as we can see in Nehemiah:

Nehemiah 9:27. "According to Thy manifold mercies, Thou gavest them saviours, who should save them from the hands of their enemies." So there should be thereafter.

Same with Judges 3:15. The word "Savior" means one who saves from trouble and impending disaster. And G-d saves by sending saviors.

Young's Literal Translation
And the sons of Israel cry unto Jehovah, and Jehovah raiseth to them a saviour, Ehud son of Gera, a Benjamite (a man -- shut of his right hand), and the sons of Israel send by his hand a present to Eglon king of Moab;

To "to judge the mount of Esau. "Esau hated" Ref:Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Romans 9 is very specific about Jacob and Esau and is not referring to all of mankind.

Jesus is as Jacob, second born, yet loved, but as Easu,(as mankind having lost its inheritance). (first born is hated, thus judged.)

Where do you get the idea that Esau represents all of mankind?

Mic 4:8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

Yes, the "Kingdom", the "First dominion" was indeed preached in Jerusalem.

The new Jerusalem. Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

There is no reason to believe that verse is referring to the "New" Jerusalem as described in Revelation.

Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

G-d is builder and maker of all things. Did He assemble all the buildings in Jerusalem Himself? Probably not. Did he bring together the people who would? Probably so.

Jesus as God built that City which is the New Jerusalem, therefore, God as Savior.

The "New Jerusalem" has yet to arrive, and there's no reason to again include your spurious "Jesus as G-d" spin into the equation. And there's no reason to believe that Jesus was any different meaning of "savior" in terms of the kinds of human saviors that were sent.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus as God is your stumbling block.
Ref: Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Another verse snatched out of context by a trinitarian. Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua.

 

[1robin]

Another verse snatched out of context by a trinitarian. Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua.

I have never had an opinion on this verse so I dug into it a little.


Mathew Henry:
8:9-16 The prophet challenges the enemies of the Jews. Their efforts would be vain, and themselves broken to pieces. It concerns us, in time of trouble, to watch against all such fears as put us upon crooked courses for our own security. The believing fear of God preserves against the disquieting fear of man. If we thought rightly of the greatness and glory of God, we should see all the power of our enemies restrained. The Lord, who will be a Sanctuary to those who trust in him, will be a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, to those who make the creature their fear and their hope. If the things of God be an offence to us, they will undo us. The apostle quotes this as to all who persisted in unbelief of the gospel of Christ, 1Pe 2:8. The crucified Emmanuel, who was and is a Stumbling-stone and Rock of offence to unbelieving Jews, is no less so to thousands who are called Christians. The preaching of the cross is foolishness in their esteem; his doctrines and precepts offend them.

Gill's exposition:

And he shall be for a sanctuary,.... Not the king of Assyria, as Aben Ezra, but the Lord of hosts: the Targum rightly interprets it of the word of the Lord, the essential Word; of the Messiah, who is for a sanctuary, or asylum, a place of refuge for his people in all times of distress, and who is their dwelling place in all generations; he dwells in them, and they dwell in him; and where they dwell safely and securely, peaceably and quietly, comfortably and pleasantly, and that always; he is a sanctuary to worship in, in whom they draw nigh to the Father, and offer up the sacrifices of prayer and praise, and where the glory of God is seen by them, and they have communion with him; or "for sanctification", as the Septuagint version; this Christ is to his people, 1 Corinthians 1:30,
but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel: which Jarchi interprets of Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and his company, and of Shebna and his company; but Aben Ezra much better of the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah, especially when the twelve tribes were under one form of government in Christ's time. In the Talmud (u) it is explained of the two houses of the fathers of Israel; and these are they, the head of the captivity in Babylon, and the prince in the land of Israel; and the Nazarenes, as Jerom (w) reports, apply the words to the two houses or families of Hillel and Shammai, who were two heads of schools in Jerusalem, a little before the times of Christ, and were of the sect of the Pharisees; and to whom indeed Christ was a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, as he was to the Jews in common; who were offended and stumbled at his birth and parentage, he descending from poor parents; at his education and place of bringing up; at the mean appearance of himself and his followers; at the obscurity of his kingdom, it not being of this world, nor coming with observation; at the company he kept, and the audience that attended on him; at his doctrines and miracles; and at his death, and the manner of it; see Romans 9:32. For a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; even the principal inhabitants of it, such as the elders of the people, priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, who sought to entangle Christ in his talk, and to ensnare him by questions they put unto him; but were themselves snared and taken, convicted, confounded, and silenced. See Matthew 22:15.

It seems these folks atleast think it concerns Christ. I haven't been following this thread, what is your position on the deity of Christ and the necessity of Christ for salvation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have never had an opinion on this verse so I dug into it a little.


Mathew Henry:
8:9-16 The prophet challenges the enemies of the Jews. Their efforts would be vain, and themselves broken to pieces. It concerns us, in time of trouble, to watch against all such fears as put us upon crooked courses for our own security. The believing fear of God preserves against the disquieting fear of man. If we thought rightly of the greatness and glory of God, we should see all the power of our enemies restrained. The Lord, who will be a Sanctuary to those who trust in him, will be a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, to those who make the creature their fear and their hope. If the things of God be an offence to us, they will undo us. The apostle quotes this as to all who persisted in unbelief of the gospel of Christ, 1Pe 2:8. The crucified Emmanuel, who was and is a Stumbling-stone and Rock of offence to unbelieving Jews, is no less so to thousands who are called Christians. The preaching of the cross is foolishness in their esteem; his doctrines and precepts offend them.

Gill's exposition:

And he shall be for a sanctuary,.... Not the king of Assyria, as Aben Ezra, but the Lord of hosts: the Targum rightly interprets it of the word of the Lord, the essential Word; of the Messiah, who is for a sanctuary, or asylum, a place of refuge for his people in all times of distress, and who is their dwelling place in all generations; he dwells in them, and they dwell in him; and where they dwell safely and securely, peaceably and quietly, comfortably and pleasantly, and that always; he is a sanctuary to worship in, in whom they draw nigh to the Father, and offer up the sacrifices of prayer and praise, and where the glory of God is seen by them, and they have communion with him; or "for sanctification", as the Septuagint version; this Christ is to his people, 1 Corinthians 1:30,
but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel: which Jarchi interprets of Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and his company, and of Shebna and his company; but Aben Ezra much better of the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah, especially when the twelve tribes were under one form of government in Christ's time. In the Talmud (u) it is explained of the two houses of the fathers of Israel; and these are they, the head of the captivity in Babylon, and the prince in the land of Israel; and the Nazarenes, as Jerom (w) reports, apply the words to the two houses or families of Hillel and Shammai, who were two heads of schools in Jerusalem, a little before the times of Christ, and were of the sect of the Pharisees; and to whom indeed Christ was a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, as he was to the Jews in common; who were offended and stumbled at his birth and parentage, he descending from poor parents; at his education and place of bringing up; at the mean appearance of himself and his followers; at the obscurity of his kingdom, it not being of this world, nor coming with observation; at the company he kept, and the audience that attended on him; at his doctrines and miracles; and at his death, and the manner of it; see Romans 9:32. For a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; even the principal inhabitants of it, such as the elders of the people, priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, who sought to entangle Christ in his talk, and to ensnare him by questions they put unto him; but were themselves snared and taken, convicted, confounded, and silenced. See Matthew 22:15.

It seems these folks atleast think it concerns Christ. I haven't been following this thread, what is your position on the deity of Christ and the necessity of Christ for salvation?

When you say "dug into it" you mean you copied it from biblos.com. And I disagree with their interpretation. Both Henry and Gil were Christians and presupposed Yeshua is the savior. They both may have been of trinitarian thought. Gill sure was. Isaiah is an immediate future prophecy. It has nothing to do with events that supposedly happened 700 years later. The back drop of what's going on in Isaiah is found in 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings. It's dealing with a war and that's all.