Did Jesus say he was God???

[URAVIP2ME]

It means nothing...Absolutely nothing......considering the Greek language didn't use upper or lowercase letters. Nor did Aramaic, Hebrew or their sister language (Arabic). It wasn't until bibles were translated into (English) we see uppercase and lowercase lettering.

Yes, and that upper case and lower case lettering was done because it showed separation between the two (2) LORD/Lord's of Psalm 110:1.

The Lord in all uppercase was where the Hebrew Tetragrammation (YHWH) appeared. Not so for the lowercase Lord.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Okay that same proof verse "many will say to ME in that day, Lord, Lord....and I will reply I never knew you depart from ME"

Who is the judge in the Judgment Day? God right? Hmm what is Jesus saying right here? Yup you guessed it, He Himself will say to many "I never knew you". God is the Judge/Jesus is the Judge. And oh Jesus didnt correct Thomas when He said "My Lord and My God"

Wasn't Jesus quite clear already at John 20:17 when Jesus said:
I [Jesus] ascend to my Father....and my God. [God of Jesus]?

Often when a person is startled he has said out loud, "Oh, my God" and we understand to mean they are not calling the person in front of them as God but merely calling out to the heavens or God in heaven.

Didn't Jesus give Thomas a mild rebuke at John 20:29-31?
What did Jesus want Thomas to believe about him in verse 31?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You are telling us to believe that Yahweh is Jesus and then everything will just all work out. This "major truth" we need to believe in is like believing someone is guilty before the trial even starts. How can someone investigate and analyze the evidence truthfully with a biased preconceived notion? The burden of proof lies with you to prove that Jesus was Yahweh, not ours. Aside from Jesus teaching the contrary to your belief, it's clear your arguments come from a theological viewpoint. That is we must be believers to "get it". Instead of ranting about what you've learned in church, try taking a history course on Christianity or the new testament or some textual criticism and your arguments would hold more weight.

Why not also a course on tracing the origin of the history of mankind's religious family tree back to its pagan roots in Mesopotamia with its many triune gods?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, and that upper case and lower case lettering was done because it showed separation between the two (2) LORD/Lord's of Psalm 110:1.

The Lord in all uppercase was where the Hebrew Tetragrammation (YHWH) appeared. Not so for the lowercase Lord.

As far as the Hebrew translation from the OT that in it self is a better description of (LORD - Lord) that is unmistakeably reserved for "God" because of the word YHWH. When referring to men it's (Adown). But note this (Adown) says it can be used for human or divine.

It can be difficult in the NT because they may not have had multiple words for "lord". It may come down to the context of the conversation or what we see here and that is how we are all (interperting) it. The greek word for "lord" is applied to Yeshua as well as others. It can mean Master (as a respectful title). The reason I say this is because a lot of bibles translate the word as master and what I put in parenthesis above is how the definition of the word is listed in Strong's Greek To English Lexicon. This is why I say the translators of some bibles rendered the word in capital(s) because they did it with bias....when all the word meant was to be used as a respectful title and not as in reference to "God". No one around Yeshua using the word meant it in that manner.

 

[AK4]

QuoteIRTY PENGUIN

You are certainly welcome to believe this but that was not the intent nor did anyone listening to this think he was their god. You have place emphasis on the word "lord"...reading it from your English translation where they have capitalized the first letter so now your impression is that he must be "God". Not the case at all.

This is the writers intent. The writer had to believe Jesus was God. Proof is in Matt 1 :23

23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITHCHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

I agree the jews didn’t want to believe this. That doesn’t make them right. They also don’t believe God the Father can make another God (Jesus) and that He is also making us into gods hence
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has R796 it not been written in your R797 Law, R798 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35 "If R799 he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 3

Quote:
I see..... ...I do know this...Nowhere in that book does Yeshua say he's "God" nor was it something he went around preaching and teaching. He outright asks the question...who do you say I am?, and the answer was...

Matthew 16:15-17
He asked them, But whom do you say I am?


And Simon Kepha answered and said, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living god.


And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in heaven.

Simon knew he was not "God" rather he was the Messiah, son of "God".

Simon knew He was both. Notice
2 Peter 1:1 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
ΣίμωνΠέτροςδοῦλοςκαὶἀπόστολοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦτοῖςἰσότιμονἡμῖνλαχοῦσινπίστινἐνδικαιοσύνῃτοῦθεοῦἡμῶνκαὶσωτῆροςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ,
KJV with Strong's
Simon Peter a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our SaviourJesusChrist

Notice Peter calls Him “God and Saviour”. Two points to make. Back when Peter said what he said in Matt 16:15, he still wasnt converted yet [check out Luke 22:31-32] so maybe at that time He didn’t truly and fully believe that Jesus was who He said He was, but BUT [point #2] the jews [including Peter] DID know that the Messiah was to be their Saviour and all the OT scriptures said that God will be their Saviour. So actually Peter did know that the Saviour was his God, but maybe he still had a little doubt that Jesus was the one because he was not fully converted yet.
Oh and point #3 would be since no one knew of God the Father until Jesus unfolded Him all they knew was of YHWH or Lord God who was/is Jesus. Jesus [Lord God/YHWH] came to let us/them know of the Father His God.

Quote:
Nope...I didn't think or say you or were. I was simply responding to your interpretation of your scriptures.

Okay

Yea, that's pretty much what your scriptures say....but it certainly does not say implicitly or explicit the man was God...

I will sorta agree with you there that in the Gospels Jesus doesn’t come out and say these exact words “ I am God”, but He does tell them in many many other ways. Remember He told that a couple people He healed not to tell anyone and the disciples not to tell anyone He was the Christ? If He didn’t want them to tell this, its easy to see then why he didn’t go out announcing who He was.

 

[AK4]

You are telling us to believe that Yahweh is Jesus and then everything will just all work out. This "major truth" we need to believe in is like believing someone is guilty before the trial even starts. How can someone investigate and analyze the evidence truthfully with a biased preconceived notion?

There is no biased preconcieved notion here. I used to be a believer in the trinity until i [actually God] wiped cleaned any preconcieved teachings and started me afresh. And that major truth i gave you is a good beginning and if you stick with that and following the scriptures you wont have the nonsense stuff like the trinity

The burden of proof lies with you to prove that Jesus was Yahweh, not ours. Aside from Jesus teaching the contrary to your belief, it's clear your arguments come from a theological viewpoint.

Nope, no theological viewpoint here, just following and believing the scriptures. I know of only one who actually show who is Jesus and who is the Father. I havent seen anyone else writings yet who has.

That is we must be believers to "get it". Instead of ranting about what you've learned in church, try taking a history course on Christianity or the new testament or some textual criticism and your arguments would hold more weight.

What i learned they [these churches] dont teach. I got a standing axiom---if the church teaches it, its false. It may have some element of truth in it but mix in some lies and then it becomes false. When you really breakdown their doctrines you will see how unscriptural they are.

Ive done my "history" and research and homework on these things so i know what i am talking about.

 

[AK4]

Before we would go in to the discussion on your comments, I would like to say that you did not get my point, so again we are back to beginning.

Jesus and the Father are not the same entity? In that case we absolutely have nothing to talk about. If you claim they are both the same we might have something to talk about, but once you claim them being two different entities then it is out of my ball park.

They are the same in spirit, not the same "entity". Just as if God was fully in you, you and God are not the same entity. And just like it was/is for Jesus if God was fully in you and you was His first creation and then through you He began creating everything else, then you are also God to what you created. A better example--God said Adam and Eve became one. There werent literally one but in spirit when a man and a woman are married, in spirit they are one. Same for Jesus and the Father, they are one in spirit because they both have one goal, one plan, one purpose for what they created.

Judaism is a believe in ONE G-D, in your case it is two father is one son is two, other then the fact that logically there can't be more then one G-D,

Ultimately there is only one God, the Father. But the Father can create other Gods also and this is what He is doing with mankind. The Psalms 82:6 state this. he created Jesus to show us "some sort of proof" that He can do it and will do it. I know I know hard to believe, but hey if you believe the scriptures and this is what the scriptures say then what can i say

how can you base your believes on an idea of one G-D and end up with two, and then claim the originators of being wrong using their scriptures?

Because the scriptures testify to this. The very first clue to this is in Genesis and its the basic of all "why would God refer to Himself as "Us"?" That should tell you there that maybe God [the Father] created something else to be like Him and then Jesus comes and reveals all this.

Christianity is the direct result of a Roman believes mixed with Jewish believes, but not by having the Jews accepting their believes as was intended but the other way around. Jesus is a greeko-roman version of a Jewish G-D, to bad Christianity still doesn't understand that a Jewish G-D doesn't sit on top of a mountain, and can't have a physical form, as soon as you do realize that, you won't have the need for a character named Jesus.

I agree christainity is all screwed up. They just dont know who the Father is and most think of God as a trinity. They dont realise that God [the Father] is not a man. Judaism recognises this part, but they dont recognise the Father created a Lord God to represent Him since no one can see or hear Him [the Father]. You know cant have a physical form or audible voice.

Its crazy--judaism "can recognise" the Father but not the Son. Christianity 'can recognise' the Son but cant fully grasp the Father

 

[AK4]

Wasn't Jesus quite clear already at John 20:17 when Jesus said:
I [Jesus] ascend to my Father....and my God. [God of Jesus]?

Yup. And in Revelation Jesus mentions His God some more.

Didn't Jesus give Thomas a mild rebuke at John 20:29-31?

Yeah i would say

What did Jesus want Thomas to believe about him in verse 31?

He wanted Thomas to believe everything He told him about Himself and everything else and the disciples over the past 3 1/2 years. And as the most conrete evidence for them then was His resurrection. Imagine them thinking this--"if this man comes back to life then everything this man said and did is true." Thats probably why Thomas in awe said "My Lord and My God".

 

[TashaN]

Jesus didn't mention he was God. People thought he was.

 

[Ba'al]

Jesus didn't mention he was God. People thought he was.

And they didn't even think that at the time. It took decades of storytelling to drum up the idea. The Christology became more apparent as the years went on. In Mark, Jesus is a mere prophet. Matthew and Luke present Jesus as more godlike. By the time John is written, Jesus is almost like God himself. In none of the gospels though did Jesus ever say he was God.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, God exalted, God gave. Wouldn't that mean Jesus, after his resurrection, was given a new name by his God? see Rev 3:12

Every knee in all of creation would bend.- Phil 2:10. To 'God's' glory.- Phil 2:11.
Acts 4:12.

Isaiah also knew of Jesus having future exalted titles at Isaiah 9:6.

Ex 34:14 (for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God);

So my question then is this: If God is so jealous, would he really exalt another name above His own if it were not just another name for Him? My experience is that God doesn't share his authority or glory or anything else that belongs to Him.Or as the Qu'ran puts it:
Sura 3:64 Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him;

Whatever new name Jesus takes on will not be exalted above the name of Jesus.

 

[AK4]

And they didn't even think that at the time. It took decades of storytelling to drum up the idea. The Christology became more apparent as the years went on. In Mark, Jesus is a mere prophet. Matthew and Luke present Jesus as more godlike. By the time John is written, Jesus is almost like God himself. In none of the gospels though did Jesus ever say he was God.

This is just a straight fallacy and ignoring of the facts. i just showed some proof that they [jews] knew that their Messiah would be their God. And they knew this well before Jesus ever came. When Jesus came they knew He was the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour which all equals their God. They knew this. They knew this from the Daniel prophecies and others when He was suppposed to appear.They knew that Immanuel [God wth us] would dwell with them. Heres even more proof that "Christology" was well founded at the time of His appearing

Matthew 22:41-46
Mt 24:5-14
Mt 24:23
Matt 21:6-9
Matthew 26:57-68
Matthew 27:11-25--This one directly states that they [the jews] knew Jesus was the Christ, even Pilate, a Roman, knew who the jews called Christ. AND THIS IS JUST THE BOOK OF MATTHEW ALONE.

There was no made up Christology years afterward.

 

[arimoff]

This is just a straight fallacy and ignoring of the facts. i just showed some proof that they [jews] knew that their Messiah would be their God. And they knew this well before Jesus ever came. When Jesus came they knew He was the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour which all equals their God. They knew this. They knew this from the Daniel prophecies and others when He was suppposed to appear.They knew that Immanuel [God wth us] would dwell with them. Heres even more proof that "Christology" was well founded at the time of His appearing

Matthew 22:41-46
Mt 24:5-14
Mt 24:23
Matt 21:6-9
Matthew 26:57-68
Matthew 27:11-25--This one directly states that they [the jews] knew Jesus was the Christ, even Pilate, a Roman, knew who the jews called Christ. AND THIS IS JUST THE BOOK OF MATTHEW ALONE.

There was no made up Christology years afterward.

Jews did not know the christ because chsrist is not a hebrew word. Jews never waited for G-D mashiach, I would like you to bring me a Jewish source that says that mashiach would be G-D.

 

[AK4]

Jews did not know the christ because chsrist is not a hebrew word. Jews never waited for G-D mashiach, I would like you to bring me a Jewish source that says that mashiach would be G-D.

Whats the point of going to sources? How about i give you it straight from the "horses" mouth.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] 2Sa 22:3 - The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Ps 106:21 -They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;
Isa 19:20 - And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
Isa 43:3 -For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Isa 43:11 - I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isa 45:15 - Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
Isa 45:21 - Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Isa 49:26 - And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isa 60:16 - Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isa 63:8 -For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
Jer 14:8 -O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?
Ho 13:4 - Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Need more?[/FONT]

 

[AK4]

Jews did not know the christ because chsrist is not a hebrew word. Jews never waited for G-D mashiach, I would like you to bring me a Jewish source that says that mashiach would be G-D.

Oh and to make you even happier try here

Who Is The Shepherd -- G-d or Mashiach? (Messianic Judaism)
Jerusalem Destiny – Touching Zion Ministry - WAS JESUS the Messiah (Moshiach)! This one even references some of the rabbis in the Talmud. This one clearly debunks your statements above


Those jews who are in the zionist movement [and maybe others] see themselves as the messiah

 

[AK4]

Jews did not know the christ because chsrist is not a hebrew word. Jews never waited for G-D mashiach, I would like you to bring me a Jewish source that says that mashiach would be G-D.

Oh and in case you didnt want to read that whole page on that site heres an excerpt

Yeshua in the Torah?
You may ask as many have why the name Yeshua wasn't written in the Torah, surely the most popular guy in history would have been mentioned a couple times in the Torah? What if I told you Yeshua is in the Torah over 100 times? Now you know I'm out of my mind right? Well all we have to do is look up the word "salvation" in hebrew to find the answer! The word "Yeshua" means "Salvation", which is used throughout the entire Torah! Let's look at the following verse (Isaiah 62:11) and substitute "Yeshua" for salvation:

11 Behold, HaShem hath proclaimed unto the end of the earth: say ye to the daughter of Zion: 'Behold, thy [Yeshua] cometh; behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.'

When Yeshua was born his name was to be Yeshua or Salvation! So the argument that his name is not in the Torah does not hold up as in fact it is there over 100 times!

see next post

 

[AK4]

Now some proof from the sources you asked

Messianic Prophecy
First let's start with the birth of Yeshua predicted in Micah 5:1-3, where we see the Moshiach coming from Bethlehem:

1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

According to the New Testament, Yeshua was born in Bethlehem (see Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7) fulfilling this messianic prophecy. It is often argued that Yeshua could have simply attempted to fulfill all the messianic prophecies. But how could he of planned where he was born? And was he willing to risk being killed by crucifixion for a lie?

Now let's look at Daniel 9 and a prophecy that not only predicted the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but also the Moshiach to come, a Moshiach who was then killed right before the destruction of Jerusalem. Could this really be so accurate? Was the time of the Moshiach really prophesied to happen before the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in 70 A.D? This would mean that Yeshua would have to be the Moshiach and when you look at the rest of the prophecies we will cover, there is no doubt he was. Daniel reads:

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place.
25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.
26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

We see that Jerusalem is rebuilt, sin is ended and everlasting righteousness is brought in, the anointed one comes (Moshiach) and is killed, and then the city of Jerusalem is destroyed. This depicts the events that really happened in history to the tee. We know that the temple and Jerusalem were rebuilt (Ezra 6) and that Jerusalem was destroyed by fire in 70 A.D. by Titus and the Romans. These are both well known historical facts. Daniel's messianic prophecy requires that the Moshiach come in between these two events! And Yeshua did just that! G-d really can't make it any clearer; Yeshua not only came but was cut off or killed just like the prophecy said!

It is often argued that the phrase "anointed one" is not referring to Yeshua. While I think this is a poor argument, we only have to ask one question. What about what it says will happen in verse 24? When did this happen, when did transgression come to an end, when was everlasting righteousness brought in, and when was the most Holy place anointed? The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and if we interpret these verses without Yeshua than everlasting righteousness lasted a very short time! These questions cannot be answered without Yeshua!

The Jewish temple was never rebuilt since it's destruction in 70 A.D. This time is actually prophesied in the book of Hosea (3:4-5):

4 For the children of Israel shall sit solitary many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim;
5 afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek HaShem their G-d, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto HaShem and to His goodness in the end of days.

The Jewish people have gone without a sacrifice for the past two thousand years! Israel becoming a nation and G-d bringing home the Jewish people from all parts of the globe is fulfillment of this prophecy!

But going back to the coming of the Moshiach before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., did the sacrifice stop in 70 A.D. or at the death of the Moshiach? Yeshua died about 40 years prior to then and according to the New Testament (Math. 27:50-51):

50 And when Yeshua had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

So shouldn't the temple sacrifice have stopped when Yeshua died, about 40 years before the temple's destruction? Could we possibly have mention in the Talmud about this? YES! The Talmud's Masekhet Yoma says:

"40 years before the destruction of the sanctuary... its western lamp went out and the doors of the sanctuary opened themselves. Then Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai (who died ca. 90 AD) rebuked them, saying, 'Temple, O Temple, why dost thou grieve so? I know this about thee, that thou shalt be destroyed. The prophet Zechariah has, after all, foretold of thee; Open thy doors, O Lebanon, so that fire may devour your cedars' (11:1). Rabbi Yitshak Ben Tablai said, 'That is why its name was called Lebanon, because it makes white the sins of Israel.' "This cryptic name 'Lebanon' for the Temple is derived from the root laban or 'white'.116

We have documentation from the Talmud to support what Mathew tells us!

Now let's look at a very interesting prophecy in Genesis (49:10):

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

This is the one verse where I'll also include another translation. Christians have interpreted this verse to talk about 'Shiloh' as the Moshiach. The New American Standard Version reads:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
[a]Until Shiloh comes,
And (B)to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

When you read the second half of the Tanakh's verse "and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be", you have to ask who? The better translation in this case looks to be the one that uses "until shiloh comes" as the rest of the verse then makes sense.

Rabbis have understood the word "scepter" in this prophecy to mean the ability to enforce Mosaic law, including the right to administer capital punishment. There is also a connection to the identity and the record keeping of the genealogies. This is supported by Rabbi Rachmon who states in the Talmud:

"When the members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a general consternation took possession of them: they covered their heads with ashes, and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from Judah and the Moshiach has not come'"

We also see that there is evidence from the Talmud that the Jewish people believed the scepter would not depart until the Moshiach came. But is this an example of Christian bias? Can we find any other ancient rabbinical references to this verse regarding the scepter remaining until Moshiach comes and 'Shiloh' being used to denote the Moshiach? Yes! In fact here are a good bunch:

The Targum Onkelos states:

"The transmission of domain shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children's children, forever, until Messiah comes."6

The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan states:

"King and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah...until King Messiah comes"7

The Targum Yerushalmi reads:

"Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah...until the time of the coming of the King Messiah...to whom all the dominions of the earth shall become subservient"7

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b), Rabbi Johanan said:

"The world was created for the sake of the Messiah, what is this Messiah's name? The school of Rabbi Shila said 'his name is Shiloh, for it is written; until Shiloh come.'"

The reason this is so important is that the scepter was removed after Yeshua had come! The Moshiach had to of come before the scepter was removed and it was removed after Yeshua came. The Talmud tells us below that roughly forty years before the destruction of the temple the scepter was removed:

"A little more than forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the power of pronouncing capital sentences was taken away from the Jews."

What are all these references in the Talmud to 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, did a Moshiach die for the sins of the world then? Yes!

CASE CLOSED!!! The jews knew before, then and now who Jesus was/is.

 

[Ba'al]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] 2Sa 22:3 - The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Ps 106:21 -They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;
Isa 19:20 - And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
Isa 43:3 -For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Isa 43:11 - I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isa 45:15 - Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
Isa 45:21 - Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Isa 49:26 - And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isa 60:16 - Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isa 63:8 -For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
Jer 14:8 -O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?
Ho 13:4 - Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
[/FONT]

You're joking right? You think the word "saviour" in those verses are referring to Jesus? I doubt you will even find other Christians to back you up on that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is the writers intent. The writer had to believe Jesus was God. Proof is in Matt 1 :23

The "writer's" interpretation is of little importance. We can see the bias in both the writers of the NT scriptures and of those that later translated the scriptures into English. The writer of Matthew makes a claim referring back to the OT but the biblical Yeshua was never called this nor was it the name his mother was to give him. He was never referred to as Emmanuel/Immanuel. In fact that OT reference was not a prophecy about Yeshua. The writer made an interpretation trying to establish Yeshua as the supposed prophesied savior. The OT prophecy was given to a king and that king was to see the prophecy unfold in his day..not given to the king in regards to a later (700 plus years) event. So Matthew 1:23 doesn't help in establishing Yeshua as "God".

Simon knew He was both. Notice
2 Peter 1:1 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
ΣίμωνΠέτροςδοῦλοςκαὶἀπόστολοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦτοῖςἰσότιμονἡμῖνλαχοῦσινπίστινἐνδικαιοσύνῃτοῦθεοῦἡμῶνκαὶσωτῆροςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ,
KJV with Strong's
Simon Peter a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our SaviourJesusChrist

This is simply how you're interpreting it. You, like a lot of others who quote from that book seem to want to quote that which appears to fit your preconceived notions because the verse directly after that disagrees with your stance.

2 Peter 1:2
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

Peter (did not) think the biblical Yeshua was God. He shows a complete separation when talking about "God" and talking about Yeshua.

He further states....;

2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

BUT [point #2] the jews [including Peter] DID know that the Messiah was to be their Saviour and all the OT scriptures said that God will be their Saviour.

Not only is "God" listed in the OT as a (saviour) but it says he sends saviours. At a time of war and oppression "God", in the bible, says he "GAVE" them (NOT Will Give) them a saviour. It doesn't say he will be the saviour or was coming to save them, rather he gave them a saviour that the people would see, in that day and time

2 Kings 13:5
And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.

More of this can be found throughout your bible.....;

Isaiah 19:20
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

So Yeshua was not regarded as the only "saviour".

Oh and point #3 would be since no one knew of God the Father until Jesus unfolded Him all they knew was of YHWH or Lord God who was/is Jesus. Jesus [Lord God/YHWH] came to let us/them know of the Father His God.

First. That makes no sense. Second. That's not what the people believed. Third. That's not what the biblical Yeshua taught his followers.

This is what I meant by having a circular discussion. This will never end.....

 

[AK4]

You're joking right? You think the word "saviour" in those verses are referring to Jesus? I doubt you will even find other Christians to back you up on that.

You are probably right cuz most christians are sheeple and they dont "dive" into the Word
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 3467[/FONT]encodedOriginalWord[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] ישע [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]a primitive root[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]yasha`[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]yaw-shah'[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Verb[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]929[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. to save, be saved, be delivered
   1. (Niphal)
      1. to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
      2. to be saved (in battle), be victorious
   2. (Hiphil)
      1. to save, deliver
      2. to save from moral troubles
      3. to give victory to

[/FONT]
Try this site WHERE DID THE NAME JESUS COME FROM