Do you believe that Jesus is the Word?

[blü 2]

You're arguing with someone who will never admit wrong. That hasn't become evident?

We'll see ─ and perhaps I'll agree with you. Stay tuned ...

 

[paarsurrey]

syncretic said: ↑
Jesus and the Father are both 'God'.


Paarsurrey said:

I agree with one. Jesus did not believe such things and did not even imply to say them, in my opinion. It is the Church who is forcing to put things in Jesus' mouth, I believe.
Regards

Instead of trying to put words in the mouth of Jesus, Christianity is to reform itself with what Jesus said and acted, please.
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, that’s an interesting aspect you pointed out: that “those of opposing viewpoints” actually killed others.
Apparently, you think those who approve of killing the innocent, would not have God’s spirit on them? (And you need God’s spirit to accurately understand the Scriptures.)

I believe the same.

Yet, I know many religious organizations, who teach that Jesus is God, that have supported conflicts such as WWI, WWII, etc.,
Protestants killing Protestants, Catholics killing Catholics, valuing their national brothers over their spiritual brothers. Disobeying Jesus himself at John 13:34-35. He even said to ‘love your enemy’!
The words of Titus 1:16 applies to them.

That’s one reason I know their teachings are wrong.

There's a fair bit of torture porn in the gospels. Jesus doesn't seem above revelling in human suffering and death.

 

[Desert Snake]

But why would god bother saying this unless he didn't know? God knew the answer to the question, and if Jesus knew as well---as has been asserted (after all, Jesus is the Word)---then why did Jesus bother to utter them? Either

1) Jesus is a fool, asking a question to which he already knows the answer, which does go along with the notion that he knows the thoughts of god

2) Jesus seriously doesn't know why he's been forsaken, which doesn't go along with the notion that he knows the thoughts of god​

.

Jesus was teaching to the adherents. Not just saying random things. Jesus knew that He would be resurrected. The sacrifice is literal in a spiritual sense, and not literal, in the sense of say other temple sacrifices. A actual sacrifice like a temple sacrifice, would not be allowed in this instance to have any meaning, as it goes against the religious beliefs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There's a fair bit of torture porn in the gospels. Jesus doesn't seem above revelling in human suffering and death.

For himself (not 'revelling' in it, just endured it). But he never caused others pain (except maybe their conscience), physical pain....he relieved the suffering of others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For himself (not 'revelling' in it, just endured it). But he never caused others pain (except maybe their conscience), physical pain....he relieved the suffering of others.

Some of his sermons in the Gospel male promises of future pain and revel in that. Whether you think Jesus will be the one to cause that promised pain depends on whether you think Jesus is God.

 

[Skwim]

Jesus was teaching to the adherents. Not just saying random things. Jesus knew that He would be resurrected. The sacrifice is literal in a spiritual sense, and not literal, in the sense of say other temple sacrifices. A actual sacrifice like a temple sacrifice, would not be allowed in this instance to have any meaning, as it goes against the religious beliefs.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Desert Snake]

A actual sacrifice of that manner is not allowed in the belief. Therefore it does not mean contextually, anything that would correlate, to that idea.

 

[Desert Snake]

It isn't a matter of knowing the thoughts of god, but the concept itself.

You say the Word "is every expressed thought of God," and in as much as it's said that "Jesus is the Word," this would mean that Jesus is the thoughts of god. But If this was so then Jesus would have no reason to ask god, " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus would already know why.

.

Whatever you think it means, it certainly was not literal.

Jesus went, Himself, to the crucifixion. The resurrection occured 3 days later.

Where did the father forsake Jesus?

It doesn't make sense, according to Jesus's own words, as a literal statement.
Matthew 26:53-54

 

[Skwim]

Whatever you think it means, it certainly was not literal.

Of course not. That would be too difficult to explain. Instead you simply choose to consider it,. . . . . what? Metaphorical? Allegorical? Analogical? Symbolic? An allusion?

Where did the father forsake Jesus?

I haven't the faintest. All I know is that Jesus implied god had forsaken when he asked "why have you forsaken me?”

It doesn't make sense, according to Jesus's own words, as a literal statement.
Matthew 26:53-54

Gotta tell you something, there's a lot of things in the Bible that don't make sense, which is why I'm curious about Jesus' "forsaken" remark.

.

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course not. That would be too difficult to explain. Instead you simply choose to consider it,. . . . . what? Metaphorical? Allegorical? Analogical? Symbolic? An allusion?

Personally, I believe you can interpret it in different ways. Perhaps Jesus was actually referring to a person named Eli, and admonishing him for lack of faith, or what not.
What we do know, is that it makes no sense as a literalism, since Jesus went to His own crucifixion, and had said earlier that He would be resurrected in 3 days.
So, at no point , on the cross, would Jesus have actually thought that the father had forsaken. Makes no sense.

I haven't the faintest. All I know is that Jesus implied god had forsaken when he asked "why have you forsaken me?”

Or something else. Many believe it's a singing phrase, a song or hymn.
It would be a bit odd to match your statement to known phrase. So, choose what you want it to mean, knowing what it wouldn't mean.

Gotta tell you something, there's a lot of things in the Bible that don't make sense, which is why I'm curious about Jesus' "forsaken" remark.

And in the book of Luke,
Luke 23:46
Jesus said something else. Jesus clearly said more than one thing, on the cross, and via comparison, and context, it is quite obvious that Jesus did not say that phrase in a literal sense, referring to the father.
That would not only contradict Scripture, the other verses, it makes no sense, religiously.
.And in Luke,

 

[Desert Snake]

We'll see ─ and perhaps I'll agree with you. Stay tuned ...

You need to know a theory, before arguing it.

You're also having trouble just generally staying on topic and not saying random things in your posts, that just confuse the arguments.etc

 

[blü 2]

You need to know a theory, before arguing it.

You're also having trouble just generally staying on topic and not saying random things in your posts, that just confuse the arguments.etc

So explain the Trinity to me. You said you knew, did you not? Is it three faces of the one being, is it three gods with one vote each, is each member one third of god, or does 1+1+1=1?

And explain where you got Eesu from.

And how 'Jesus' comes to mean 'God among us'.

(If you don't know, please just say so.)

 

[Shadow Link]

Allegorically, when looking at the trinity, supreme intelligence(attributed God) abandoned Truth(the son) to suffer for the future of Gods sake --- hence the Bible story in and of itself.

Truth(Jesus) died for sin(ignorance) in the sense that Jesus taught others to bring them out of the state of sin(ignorance). This rationale deriving however from a blameless account of the life of Jesus leaving no justification for His accusers other than their own folly. And something His accusers could not even conceive at that time — the power of perfectly executed martyrdom.

 

[Desert Snake]

And explain where you got Eesu from.

And how 'Jesus' comes to mean 'God among us'.

(If you don't know, please just say so.)

I already told you, Eesu, Yesu, Yeshu, Jesus, Iesous, are all the same name, variance of each other.

'His name shall be Immanuel',
Meaning God with us,

'They named Him Jesus',
And that means generally JHVH with us.

That's the argument I presented.

You didn't refute it, you presented the name Jesus from Yeshua Joshua/Yoheshuah theory, which however much you believe to be true, or the actual name of Jesus, is still a theory.

 

[paarsurrey]

I already told you, Eesu, Yesu, Yeshu, Jesus, Iesous, are all the same name, variance of each other.

'His name shall be Immanuel',
Meaning God with us,

'They named Him Jesus',
And that means generally JHVH with us.

That's the argument I presented.

You didn't refute it, you presented the name Jesus from Yeshua Joshua/Yoheshuah theory, which however much you believe to be true, or the actual name of Jesus, is still a theory.

If Jesus died on the Cross and he prayed from G-d to be saved life then it is irrational to name him Immanuel .Please
Regards

 

[Shadow Link]

“God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” Genesis 22:8.

 

[Desert Snake]

So explain the Trinity to me. You said you knew, did you not? Is it three faces of the one being, is it three gods with one vote each, is each member one third of god, or does 1+1+1=1?

Trinity is inferred in the Bible. I already explained, that I believe it is a deific notation, and basically denotes persons in the singular plurality. So that is my answer, to that.

 

[blü 2]

I already told you, Eesu, Yesu, Yeshu, Jesus, Iesous, are all the same name, variance of each other.

But where did you get Eesu from? I can find no record of it as a version of the name Jesus.

'His name shall be Immanuel',
Meaning God with us,

Yes, but Jesus was NOT named Immanuel. One reason for that is that you're quoting the Tanakh, which was completed centuries before (if there was a Jesus at all) there was a Jesus. Another is that Isaiah's suffering servant is the nation of Israel, not a human.

'They named Him Jesus',
And that means generally JHVH with us.

No, it doesn't. EITHER 'Jesus' is from Hebrew Yehoshua meaning 'God is salvation', as the scholars tell us. OR 'Jesus' has no known etymology, which follows from what you've said. To pretend 'Jesus' doesn't mean 'God is salvation' doesn't allow you to claim that it means 'God among us', for which you offer no basis in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or anything else but that hardworking whim of yours.


And since you keep not replying to the Trinity question, it seems either you don't know after saying you did, or you think the church has got it right after all to call it a 'mystery in the strict sense' ie a nonsense, but you don't want to agree with that because then you'd be admitting I was right.

 

[Desert Snake]

And since you keep not replying to the Trinity question, it seems either you don't know after saying you did, or you think the church has got it right after all to call it a 'mystery in the strict sense' ie a nonsense, but you don't want to agree with that because then you'd be admitting I was right.

I did answer the trinity question, actually. And what I answered is hardly a mystery. The strict distinction in the persons is wrong, you either get that, or you don't. Or, you don't know what God means, Biblically, in it's more than one usage.