If Jesus was God, explain this verse...

[Shermana]

You've demonstrated time and time again that you'll take ANYTHING the way you want to see it, independent of what is actually happening, so I have to be at peace with your inability to see and hope others here see what you force yourself to miss.

You've demonstrated projection time and time again, as well as inability to actually respond to what I say. Why don't you stop and think and imagine if you're actually describing yourself. To a T. I'm pretty sure the "others" here are making similar assessments.

And I guess your way of being at peace with yourself is completely dodging my questions like "Was Jesus being loving when he whipped the Moneychangers out of the Temple" and then accusing me of dodging questions, when I don't recall dodging any.

Here, it appears you are trying to marginalize me as unscholarly boob

I don't have to do that, you have done a fine job for me.

who doesn't deal with books and papers like scholarly you.

Well, you kind of just blatantly proved it a few posts ago, how did you not?

My reply is only to point out that you are making an unreasonable debate request of me,

Everyone note, it's unreasonable to ask Prophet to notice that there are numerous scholarly and critical examinations of controversial passages and that it's not a clear cut as he wishes to portray it.

and it is fairly obvious you are employing this tactic to distract from the weakness of your own argument.

It is the person who flinches at the thought of scholarly writings that is displaying weakness of argument. My argument stands just fine. The only thing you are capable of doing is calling my argument weak. Again, playing chess with a pigeon is a perfect description of you, and others who behave like you.

When I insert reads for you, they are short, to the point, and material I believe in which I will defend.

I often do, in fact I usually do post quotes from a specific link on a passage in question. However, this was an entire book on that passage. Meant to show multiple takes on it. I can imagine why this doesn't process with you. And I have yet to see you post anything related to a critical commentary that backs your point. The dishonest tactic is to completely avoid what I'm even saying.

When you put out a read for me, it's a freaking book?! AND you don't even agree with it?! LOL. Attempting to distract from the argument at hand is not an honest debate tactic.

Again, the point of the book is to show that there are more than just Prophet's views on the issue here and that it's not quite as cut and dry as you are pretending it is.

Now, If John Piper were here, I should like to debate him and I might be tempted to read this to research his evidence and use his own testimony against him in situations where I believe the conclusions he draws from the evidence are unwarranted, just like I do with you or anyone else.

I'm pretty sure he'd wipe the floor with you. And I have yet to see you actually do what you claim here with me or anyone else.

But, no, I'm not going to take you on when you post John Piper's or anyone else's worldviews you don't hold and likely won't defend.

Did you really not understand the point of me posting someone else's views to show you that there are multiple opinions on this issue? Or are you just trying to be condescending and use it as an excuse to avoid the point that you are not the end all authority on this matter?

 

[Shermana]

It's not likely that much of what is said in Matthew was ever uttered by Jesus if it cannot be found in mark I would argue.

Even in the stories you see the same story retold again with different characters. In Matthew, Luke, and John Jesus is asked by three different people "what they must do to gain eternal life"

Matthew he is asked by the Young Rich Man

Luke he is asked by the Teacher of the Law (might be switched with Matthew)

John he is asked by Nicodemus.

I'm not sure that story shows up in Mark however.

I've been reading the Gospel of Thomas which is just directly the sayings of Jesus, I'm not sure how it falls in the historical claims (as most scholars look at it being related to the 2nd century), but it's a different view of Jesus that sort of aligns with the mysterious Jesus seen in Mark.

I don't believe that different accounts of a story render the story unhistorical. It's more like a game of Operator. Things get lost in transmission, or gradually changed by clerical error or deliberate changing. I believe that there MAY have been deliberate changing in the episode of the Rich man because....

The story in the Gospel to the Hebrews, I believe may reflect the original tradition, in that the Rich Man was told he had never fulfilled the commandment to feed the poor, and so the point of him giving everything up was because he had to make up for past negligence, it wasn't a call for rich men to give up everything. This makes far, far more sense than the account in the Synoptics, and I believe the omission of this principle may have possibly been deliberate in order to convince more rich men to donate to the church. Just a thought though.

I actually believe that the Gospel of Thomas reflects one of the earliest traditions in the original Church, but I don't think it's necessarily THAT mysterious, it has a few mysterious parts but so do the Gospels, and the current versions we have of it may include a few edits and interpolations just like the canonical writings.

 

[Prophet]

You've demonstrated projection time and time again, as well as inability to actually respond to what I say. Why don't you stop and think and imagine if you're actually describing yourself. To a T. I'm pretty sure the "others" here are making similar assessments.

And I guess your way of being at peace with yourself is completely dodging my questions like "Was Jesus being loving when he whipped the Moneychangers out of the Temple" and then accusing me of dodging questions, when I don't recall dodging any.

You dodge every question like a politician. Even when you answer a question you dodge it. I asked plainly, "Where was Moses when Cain killed
Abel?" If sin was based wholly on Mosaic Law as you have said over and over again, a murder that predates Mosaic Law is not murder at all. To this bulletproof reasoning, you counter with a mere forceful restatement that breaking Mosaic Law is sin.

To psychologically block yourself from acknowledging your own logical pitfalls, you accuse me over and over again of things you are more guilty. You dodge everything, and then the moment you make what you think might be a good point that I don't feel particularly threatened by, you assume I must be avoiding responding to it out of the same fear you have for clearly seeing my arguments.

So you have a single instance of Jesus being physically violent with others. You seem to be positing that this isolated story about angry tough guy Jesus which may or may not be true should be used to discount Jesus' teachings on love. Yeah, that sounds like the best point you've made. LOL

I don't have to do that, you have done a fine job for me.

I'm cheering for you.

Well, you kind of just blatantly proved it a few posts ago, how did you not?

Because I won't respond to you posting a book which has opinions you won't defend? All I prove is an ability to see when someone is trying to waste my time.

Everyone note, it's unreasonable to ask Prophet to notice that there are numerous scholarly and critical examinations of controversial passages and that it's not a clear cut as he wishes to portray it.

No. I didn't say anything like that. I said its unreasonable to ask me to respond to viewpoints you don't hold and won't defend. By contrast, I gave you just a few short paragraphs from C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" to read, which you NEVER responded to. I asked less of you than you asked of me, and was simply ignored. Did I whine like you when you did that?

Go on through life demanding respect that you don't give and see how it works out.

I often do, in fact I usually do post quotes from a specific link on a passage in question. However, this was an entire book on that passage. Meant to show multiple takes on it. I can imagine why this doesn't process with you. And I have yet to see you post anything related to a critical commentary that backs your point. The dishonest tactic is to completely avoid what I'm even saying.



Again, the point of the book is to show that there are more than just Prophet's views on the issue here and that it's not quite as cut and dry as you are pretending it is.



I'm pretty sure he'd wipe the floor with you. And I have yet to see you actually do what you claim here with me or anyone else.

Your argument IS weak. However, my merely saying that isn't the entire demonstration of my viewpoint as it tends to be for you. I went a step further. I demonstrated that equating sin with the breakage of law, any law, leads to extremely illogical conclusions. I demonstrated this at least twice, first with Abel's murder predating Mosaic Law. Second, Jesus, when confronted with being who thought in this way, pointed out that if goodness is had by not breaking laws, it would then be wise to cut off parts of the body which would tempt you to cross the law. Surely, it is better to arrive in heaven maimed than have the whole of your body thrown into hell isn't it? If you believe as you do, truly, you should be cutting yourself.

Also, I've demonstrated that you are a murderous person, despite how superior you feel to those who do murder. Given the power and circumstances, you'd definitely have me murdered. You've already testified against yourself before you started backpedaling. Using your own words against you is a lot of fun. Thank you.

Did you really not understand the point of me posting someone else's views to show you that there are multiple opinions on this issue? Or are you just trying to be condescending and use it as an excuse to avoid the point that you are not the end all authority on this matter?

I understand the use of diversionary tactics in debate quite well, but you have no point.

 

[Shermana]

Before I even begin to bother to respond to Prophet's latest barrage of manure, let's look at the first of what is either another lie or a total misrepresentation:

You dodge every question like a politician. Even when you answer a question you dodge it. I asked plainly, "Where was Moses when Cain killed
Abel?"

I have stated several times, that the Law of Moses is simply the FULL EXTENT of what God defines as sin, and that before that time, there was still sin, just not fully defined.

I'm going to give "Prophet" here the benefit of the doubt and assume he's simply demonstrating another woeful display of his "Context" reading abilities especially when it comes to basic English, or some extreme forgetfulness (of which his title may imply why), and NOT that he is just deliberately ignoring what I said.

 

[Shermana]

. Given the power and circumstances, you'd definitely have me murdered. You've already testified against yourself before you started backpedaling. Using your own words against you is a lot of fun. Thank you.

Now Prophet's lies are getting flat out dangerous. I specifically said I would NOT have him dispatched, and I told him that in "My book", which is the Torah, those who falsely claim to be prophets are put to death, and it was in relation to what defined sin in the Jewish religion. This does not mean I said I would do it as he is insisting I said, even after I explained my position.

The problem with these kinds of lies is that Prophet may think he's entitled to some kind of pre-emptive action based on his delusional thinking and doubling down on his understanding because he WANTS it to be that I said I would have him put to death when I most certainly did not. At best, I said I wished a "humbling" upon him, and I doubt any sane person would disagree that he would be an excellent candidate for an ego-shrinking.

Now perhaps at best, he is demonstrating that he should be put in an asylum where he can't hurt anyone, but I have not once advocated having him put to death, I explained this to him very rationally, and he insists over and over that I did. This could be demonstrative of an extremely dangerous personality type. More so considering he thinks its wrong to lay condemnation against murderers and rapists.

 

[look3467]

Hi AJ, I'm not sure you are really understanding my point. Are you a parent? Would you require that your only good child stand in the place of your disobedient children just so your disobedient children could be forgiven by you? No you wouldn't! It is just like what father would give his son a serpent when he asked him for a fish. Common sense and logic should prevail.

Elohim is a patient and wonderful teacher. His plan was for mankind to experience sin, while dwelling in the flesh, so that this short breath would be used to train and teach us how to LIVE with Him throughout all of eternity. Adam and Eve had no choice. They were just like two little innocent children who had no knowledge of good and evil, and when told not to do something, they reacted just like a small child would in hearing from their parent not to eat the candy that is sitting on the table. What Elohim is doing with mankind is a sort of "spiritual" inoculation, or vaccine for the disease of sinning against His Spirit. And just like with a physical vaccine, a less deadly form of the disease is injected into the body so that the body can build up it's defenses against it. The sin of the flesh is the inoculation or vaccine that Elohim is using to protect His Body against Spiritual Sin, and the True or Proper reaction that we should have when coming into the Knowledge of the Truth concerning what that physical sin causes (Yeshua's suffering and death), is that we learn to stop sinning, and extend mercy to Yeshua by not making Him stand up on the Cross where He ought not stand. He desires this mercy from you and me and ALL sinners, as He does not like to be unmercifully sacrificed.

Yeshua knew it had to be so. That He be treated with such violence and hate. It was the ONLY way to cause us to be blessed in TURNING us from our iniquity. And He knows that mercy will triumph in the end as most sinners will be delivered OUT from their sin, and be healed from the wound that Elohim inflicted. KB

Hi, KB
Yes, I am a parent. And your analogy does not fit.
And here is the reasons why.

Father God is the Creator of of our existence. He created us as gods.
As gods (lower case g) we become separated from the Father spiritually, being that we have independence, and separation is defined as death.

Adam and Eve expelled/separated from the Father in "Gen_3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Question? How could Adam or Eve know good and evil if Eve, as the story goes, had not eaten of the fruit?

Did they know good and evil before? What instance can you note that they did before the fall?

The reason your analogy does not fit is because I am not the creator therefore, I can only become a co-creator of what had been already created.

As in, "seed after its own kind".

So, logic tells me that unless the creator recreates a body (vessel), out of what exists already, from the original marred vessel,(all of humanity) and this time a perfect vessel (Jesus)fit for destruction, and offers mankind Jesus as the sacrificial offering in place of the marred vessel, than all that is lost is Jesus and not mankind.

That is the only possible way the Father could redeem His creation.

Perfect analogy is of Abraham Issac's substitute. The ram in the bush is Jesus. Issac is representative of mankind, that normally condemned by separation, was the object of the sacrifice.

And you are right, Elohim is a loving creator, so much that He gave His only....I emphasize "only".....begotten Son, because Jesus is the only one of all mankind condemned, to redeem that which was lost.

When these three words "That which was lost" are taken in general, then mankind in general was lost by the creation and was in need of redemption.

Mankind is not one, as in a few, but all were lost. So all must be redeemed.

That is how I see it, for attempting to live a just and righteous life could never gain the excellence of perfection because of our flawed state.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Prophet]

Before I even begin to bother to respond to Prophet's latest barrage of manure, let's look at the first of what is either another lie or a total misrepresentation:


I have stated several times, that the Law of Moses is simply the FULL EXTENT of what God defines as sin, and that before that time, there was still sin, just not fully defined.

I'm going to give "Prophet" here the benefit of the doubt and assume he's simply demonstrating another woeful display of his "Context" reading abilities especially when it comes to basic English, or some extreme forgetfulness (of which his title may imply why), and NOT that he is just deliberately ignoring what I said.

So, again, you are backpedaling. You claimed earlier that sin is based upon Mosaic Law. Now you admit that sin predates Mosaic Law, yet you use more rhetorician tactics to obfuscate your beliefs because you are resistant to the admission that it is Mosaic Law that is based upon sin as clear rational thinking demands and not the other way around.

I thank you for your benefit of a doubt.

 

[Shermana]

No actually, in Judaism there's a belief that there's more to the story than just the Written word, and I believe there is a lot of truth in the Talmud, just not all of it, and such is that such executions are only applicable with a Sanhedrin, and in the Holy Land.

But I like how you are now changing your story. So are you acknowledging now that I did not call for you to be executed or do you really want to continue thinking I said that?

Do you think people who steal and resell the stolen goods should be imprisoned or should they not be condemned?

 

[Prophet]

No actually, in Judaism there's a belief that there's more to the story than just the Written word, and I believe there is a lot of truth in the Talmud, just not all of it, and such is that such executions are only applicable with a Sanhedrin, and in the Holy Land.

But I like how you are now changing your story. So are you acknowledging now that I did not call for you to be executed or do you really want to continue thinking I said that?

Where did I claim that you called for my execution? I remember claiming that your beliefs are murderous if they are in strict accordance with Mosaic Law: a fact you yourself testified to, twice. I remember claiming only that your motives are murderous, thus, given the correct time and circumstance, murderous actions would come from you. But I did not claim you called out for my execution. I simply claimed that all evidence says that you would if you could.

Do you think people who steal and resell the stolen goods should be imprisoned or should they not be condemned?

You've heard it said, "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" but any man whose motives are selfish is a thief already in his heart.

 

[Shermana]

Where did I claim that you called for my execution?

. Given the power and circumstances, you'd definitely have me murdered. You've already testified against yourself before you started backpedaling. Using your own words against you is a lot of fun. Thank you.

Are you just quibbling over Semantics now? You're the one who got "murder" from "Call for execution" (Which I did not personally do) when I described the Biblical penalty for false claims of prophethood. Or are you just having some blatant short-term memory problems?

 

[Shermana]

Shermana has already admitted that he would have me put to death were it in his power. I believe this is in contrast to your belief that he wants to help me. But I thank you for you opinion.

And perhaps you forgot about that one.

Now I can't tell if you're having short term memory problems or if this is evidence of MPD.

 

[Prophet]

I tested against myself? Really? How? Okay, so now you're saying I didnt admit it "directly". Where did I admit in indirectly? By saying that Jewish Law itself calls for it? Then you may as well say that EVERY JEW is indirectly admitting calling for your execution if it was in their power because of their beliefs.

You're the one bringing up repeatedly that Mosaic Law demands my execution. You're the one claiming Mosaic Law speaks for God, not all of Judaism.

I reject the notion that your fundamentalist dedication to Mosaic Law is representative of all Jews, as I've met some very nice Jews whose words and actions reflect an attitude that they ought to be good to everyone.

Yep, I pointed it out to show you my point that Mosaic Law was the full extent of what constituted sin, beyond what was considered sin before the Time before Moses.

I actually believe in being good and civil to people who deserve such.

And, what your professed prophet Jesus says on the matter? For the 100th time...

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

See, this is why I don't treat you with any.

You actually don't treat me with respect because you are rightfully highly insecure about the quality of the arguments you are presenting.

Okay, so you are in fact saying that I would murder you if I had the power to do so.

Guess what, if it was the Holy Land with a Sanhedrin and there were witnesses like in the Rabbinic tradition, I'd also call for the "murder" of adulterers and sorcerers and anyone who else who it calls execution for. Just like the Muslim countries who get complete UN-sanctioned freedom to do so.

It does not surprise me that you agree with steps taken by countries which are ruled by religious fundamentalists. And... sorcerers? haha

If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with ALL of religious Judaism. Not just me. And that can be interpreted as highly dangerous to Jews....

Again, you don't represent all of Judaism. And for the few Jews you DO represent, yes, I'd agree, you and them have reason to find me dangerous. You and whoever you represent are blind teachers of the law. You can't debate me on subjects you're only feigning knowledge on. You have no ability to rationally dismiss me, but you can't just allow me to exist while I make all of the foolish implications of your worldview obvious, so, yes, I fully understand why religious fundamentalists would put a prophet to death.

Do you believe in making pre-emptive actions towards those who believe that those who commit such sins in the Holy Land under a Sanhedrin should be put to death?

No.

 

[Shermana]

You're the one bringing up repeatedly that Mosaic Law demands my execution. You're the one claiming Mosaic Law speaks for God, not all of Judaism.

I reject the notion that your fundamentalist dedication to Mosaic Law is representative of all Jews, as I've met some very nice Jews whose words and actions reflect an attitude that they ought to be good to everyone.

Did you notice I said religious Jews? Show me religious Jews who don't believe the Torah will apply when there's a Sanhedrin and the Temple is standing again.

And yes, I do claim the Mosaic Law speaks for God.

And, what your professed prophet Jesus says on the matter? For the 100th time...

Again, there are multiple ways of interpreting this verse. And Jesus, according to your interpretation was a blatant hypocrite when he accosted the Pharisees and the Moneychangers.

I asked you to explain that contradiction but I don't believe I got an answer.

You actually don't treat me with respect because you are rightfully highly insecure about the quality of the arguments you are presenting.

If that's what you want to believe, I hope it makes you feel better, but you're the one who has to dodge my questions while accusing me of doing so when I do in fact answer them.

The way you act and your assertions based on a very limited understanding of the text and context (Something you constantly bring up but apparently don't have any clue about) is just part of why I don't respect you. Respect is earned. You haven't earned it. Disrespect is earned. You've earned plenty.

It does not surprise me that you agree with steps taken by countries which are ruled by religious fundamentalists.

Doesn't surprise me either.

Again, you don't represent all of Judaism.

Certainly not the Reform and Reconstructionists at least.

And for the few Jews you DO represent, yes, I'd agree, you and them have reason to find me dangerous.

Oh we do? Why is that? Do you mean dangerous in the physical sense? Because you're certainly not dangerous in the sense of intelligent rational people taking you seriously, that's for sure.

You and whoever you represent are blind teachers of the law.

For someone who calls me blind, you don't even seem to have a coherent grasp on the basics of the scriptures you quote from.

You can't debate me on subjects you're only feigning knowledge on.

Your projection gets worse and worse.

You have no ability to rationally dismiss me,

Again, the chess with pigeons analogy springs to mind. I've rationally dismissed you each and every time. Your ego prevents you from seeing how and where.

but you can't just allow me to exist while I make all of the foolish implications of your worldview obvious

,

The only foolish implications you've made obvious are about you. Such as the (uncontested accusation) idea that you don't think murderers and rapists should be condemned with hostility.

so, yes, I fully understand why religious fundamentalists would put a prophet to death.

A true prophet should only be put to death as a martyr because he allows himself to be so.

And you are most certainly not a prophet. I can tell you that much.

No

Well that's good to hear at least.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What was Jesus?

Well in Joshua the Captain of the Lords Host appears to Joshua who bows before him in submission...the captain however does not reprove Joshua for this.

Perhaps that is who Jesus is, and the only reason he would halt worship was because his form was mortal.

 

[Dinner123]

What was Jesus?

Well in Joshua the Captain of the Lords Host appears to Joshua who bows before him in submission...the captain however does not reprove Joshua for this.

Perhaps that is who Jesus is, and the only reason he would halt worship was because his form was mortal.

He never halted worship of himself that I can see.

 

[Prophet]

Did you notice I said religious Jews? Show me religious Jews who don't believe the Torah will apply when there's a Sanhedrin and the Temple is standing again.

And yes, I do claim the Mosaic Law speaks for God.

I reject it even WITH that qualification. You do not speak for an entire group or subgroup of people. I also reject the hidden notion that you get to decide what encompasses religious observance. In particular, I find your requirement that true Jews unquestioningly accept 3,000 year old laws as truth superseding all reason highly insulting to Jews. I would never dream of throwing them into the same boat as you.

Again, there are multiple ways of interpreting this verse. And Jesus, according to your interpretation was a blatant hypocrite when he accosted the Pharisees and the Moneychangers.

As with all things there are multiple ways to misunderstand, and one way to correctly understand. And that way happens to be exactly how it reads:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

In spite of what you heard in the Mosaic Law (eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth is a direct quote), be good to those who aren't good to you. Be good to those who hurt you. Be good to those who steal and take everything from you. Be good to those who persecute you.

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Be good, even to your enemies, so that you will recognize them as Brothers and Sisters and see the perfect love in God that connects us all. God treats everyone equally, sinner and saint, as an eternal example for us to follow. If you don't do the same, you're no better than the people you look down on.

I posit far more than my interpretation being what Jesus really meant. I posit that my interpretation of what Jesus said is a perfect prescription for wise living that will stand against all reason or evidence to the contrary.

I asked you to explain that contradiction but I don't believe I got an answer.

When a Scripture portrays Jesus Christ acting like the same angry hypocrites his entire message was aimed against, it strongly suggests to me a fabrication.

If that's what you want to believe, I hope it makes you feel better, but you're the one who has to dodge my questions while accusing me of doing so when I do in fact answer them.

The way you act and your assertions based on a very limited understanding of the text and context (Something you constantly bring up but apparently don't have any clue about) is just part of why I don't respect you. Respect is earned. You haven't earned it. Disrespect is earned. You've earned plenty.

You talk about my understanding as if you demonstrate any. You take the same shortcut across reason EVERYTIME: You just claim to speak for God. It is outright funny. I'm the one claiming to be a prophet, yet you are the one just putting out very matter-of-factly what GOD thinks without feeling any responsibility to defend "God's thoughts"(which are really YOUR thoughts) rationally. The best I can hope for in terms of defense from you is a parroting of some god-awful scripture from the Bible written by people who think just like you and you claiming that yours is "the Scriptural view" which is really the same thing as you saying you know how God thinks.

 

[Shermana]

I'm the one claiming to be a prophet

Actually, I don't normally do this, I'm going to go ahead and reveal myself, I am a prophet. I've talked to God directly in my dreams, just like the Torah says. What now?

And if you deny it, we can always settle it Elijah style.

It's not really a big deal, one thing I agree with Paul on is that there will be many prophets. But you are not it.

 

[Prophet]

Actually, I don't normally do this, I'm going to go ahead and reveal myself, I am a prophet. I've talked to God directly in my dreams, just like the Torah says. What now?

And if you deny it, we can always settle it Elijah style.

It's not really a big deal, one thing I agree with Paul on is that there will be many prophets. But you are not it.

Wonderful. Perhaps you'll humor me with a prophecy?

 

[Shermana]

Wonderful. Perhaps you'll humor me with a prophecy?

I'll see if I get anything to tell you when I go to sleep.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

He never halted worship of himself that I can see.

On one Occasion when called Good, Jesus stopped and made the exclamation only God is Good.

On another occasion he washed the feet of his disciples.

There is no evidence of people actually worshiping Jesus while he was alive, though plenty for after he had passed.