Not biblical in concept or stated plain text. Son of God, said by Luke to be Adam. "Sons of the most high" said Psalm 82 which was Jesus' own argument to the claim that he "made himself an elohim." These SONS, and Adam too are not God are they?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Jews or Christians: Why Shema means what a Jew says
- Thread starter nothead
- Start date
Not biblical in concept or stated plain text. Son of God, said by Luke to be Adam. "Sons of the most high" said Psalm 82 which was Jesus' own argument to the claim that he "made himself an elohim." These SONS, and Adam too are not God are they?
Lesser "lord," sir.
You proved nothing on that thread since only one person responded on that thread and I assume you are not Shiranui117.
Too many negative ions, sir? Three hours or 3 minutes, sorry if I insist you stay mental.
IF the Son of God is God the Son, THEN "God the Son" would be said at least one time in at least NT, would you not say?
More meaning in the same three words. Closer to what you think they actually thought...actually the highest revelation of your heresy and succinct. Unfortunately not ONE TIME in the Bible. And HOW is this not one time in the Bible, sir? REALLY HOW is this not really at all in the real Bible, sir?
BECAUSE it is in your imagination, sir?
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
As in "master"?
Yo dude you gots it goin' on, behoovin' to be groovin' NOW!
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
The Lord Jesus Christ was not offering a false claim. The Lord Jesus Christ was merely asserting what He was by right, and that is, The Son of God, thus making Him equal with God. According to the Jews understanding at that time frame, and NOT today’s interpretations and understandings, “calling God His own Father” is like “making Himself equal with God” and that is blasphemy according to the Jews understanding of the Law of Moses at that time frame. Jn 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
You cannot disqualify the meaning of the Son of God as God’s Son, like the one in Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God”, because you can’t find the words “God the Son” in the NT, can you?
You are looking for something that is not in the NT and argue that if it’s not in the NT then it should not be valid.
The word “Trinity” is not in the bible so as the “Shekinah Glory of God” but I for one believe in both, the “Trinity” and the “Shekinah Glory of God”, and so as many non-Trinitarians also believe in the “Shekinah Glory of God”.
Last edited:
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
And you, a Gentile, trying to adapt the Law of Moses because your leader says so. Heretics!
You wouldn’t know what to do if you apply the whole Law of Moses to your daily living today. You will be doing nothing but reading and applying the Law of Moses all day everyday 24x7. Heretics!!!
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
So it should read like this according to your interpretation of the word adonee or adonai in Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my master (adonee/adonai), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
”pretranslated” from the Septuagint?
Levite
Higher and Higher
The Hebrew text is the original. It predates the Septuagint by centuries.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
Sir, the original ancient Hebrew text does not exist anymore, except for the Dead Sea Scroll. What you are reading today is the Mosoretic text and that is not the original Ancient Hebrew text.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are misinterpreting what Levite is saying. The text we use in Judaism is from the "Jerusalem text", not the Masoretic, and simply because the Masoretic was written doesn't mean that the Hebrew text disappeared. Of course we have no originals of either text today.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
the modifier “only/yachid” to the noun “son” should be enough to understand that “Isaac” is the “only/yachid” son of Abraham so that the readers can eliminates the thought that God was not speaking of Abraham’s other son, Ishmael. One/Echad of the many mountains in one place in the land of Moriah that God “will tell thee of”
rosends
Well-Known Member
Yes, the Hebrew that the Sept was translated FROM.
rosends
Well-Known Member
EXACTLY -- Yachid means "only". Not "one." Thank you for agreeing.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
Sir, he said “It predates the Septuagint by centuries”.
Nothing other than the original ancient Hebrew text predates the LXX/OG Septuagint. The LXX/OG Septuagint was based on the original ancient Hebrew text.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
Really?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Yup. Here, take a class.
On the Integrity and Accuracy of the Text of the Written Torah | This Jewish Life - By Rabbi Yaakov Wolbe
or read these discussions
How to reconcile the possibility that Rashi had a slightly different text of the Torah - Mi Yodeya
and the one under it.