Jesus ain't God.

[nothead]

NIV. Human sophist or philosophy was Paul’s weakness. IOW, he did not argue with Greek philosophers with their worldly knowledge. He did not draw his hearers with human motives nor with human arguments so that no one can say they were drawn by either rhetoric or logic and reason and that made them Christians.

You are wrong in that Paul's argument appealed to human common sense, not necessarily human Greek philosophical sense. One may argue these are the same but I do not agree, Greek constructs are modifications which do not presuppose God-view first, so then they are malignant to start, emphasizing the wrong things.

The question is what you hinge all things you believe from and I have stated my foundations of thought. You have not. State the number one premise of your faith, sir and then we can go from there.

 

[nothead]

The word God itself is ancient. It is a title not meant to be referred to as the "creator" or the Creation itself.

Wrong. The Word of God is God's will and expression on earth, his metaphor(s).
Just as your word or post is an expression of yourself. Don't get confusing, and you will be behoovin' to be groovin'.

But I know already you will...

The name emmanuel exists in historical text but theologians would have you believe that means the enlightened one. Remember the first inception of the bible was written by some people people who still thought the earth was flat and that the sun rotated around the earth. Its awfully trusting to trust these same people with the vast responsibility of setting a spiritual path for all humanity.

Whether the earth is flat or round makes no difference for the farmer to live or the wanderer to find the Truth which will set him free. Key: it is not behoovin' to know all things, only the important ones God wants you to know, dear.

There is proof today that "consciousness", or purposeful thought, has a direct relation to matter. yes physical matter is influenced by thought. This is not opinion it is a proven fact. If you want references I will send them. Many people believe the "dark matter" or unknown matter expanding the universe is actually the consciousness of The Creation. In the same way our minds can manipulate our environment at the subatomic level which ultimately transcends into the physical world, this same consciousness is how the Creation is creating the universe. When we learn the universe is the result of thought and that this is actually what JESUS was truly teaching, we can stop religious disagreements and move on to being normal human beings.

Rather when we know what Jesus was truly teaching we have the Door to Life. He taught Shema, Mk 12 saying this command is numero uno. No metaphysical hodgepodge of unmitigated pantheism.

No treatises on what thought does in causal effect. Simple command and obedience to command. This was the basis of communication between God and Man to Moses and this is still the primal important fundamental consideration.

Get out of Pre-K and move into kindergarten. Earth has been stuck here for millenia. There is also proof the first inception of matthew came from the TJ. The Talmud Jmmanuel or teachings of Jmmanuel. You will see the entire christian religion is based on the teachings of a man who never had anything to do with their teachings. He taught love, life, wisdom, knowledge of nature and that purpose and meaning of life is consciousness based evolution in love wisdom and knowledge. WE ARE responsible for ourselves - free will. There is no plan for us except to evolve spiritually.

No according to the OT and to the NT in Mark, there is no plan for us except to love God with the best of your ability. Lettuce move from elementary school to high school. Your behoovin' is 101 and heepy to boot. Nuevo hippyism went out when they quit the draft. There is no FREE will since all will is hindered or effected or acted upon by outside forces. But our WILL is emphasized because:

1) the formed thing does not know how the Former forms
Therefore Sovereign will is by definition out of his perception. "Can the formed thing say, "Why have you made me thus?"

2) The nephesh or soul of you is all you own in any sense. This impinges upon your environment as it will, and you will be judged not for the gnostic knowledge you aquired, rather by the morality your nephesh has done or not done while you were alive. In other words the YOU you think is YOU may not be totally accurate, nevertheless the YOU God made that is YOU will be judged according to what YOU did.

I think many religions have made beautiful stories which sound divine. Do whatever you want your whole life and in the end all is forgiven and you go to heaven forever. But that's like trying to get in shape by sitting on the couch and having faith you will get in shape. You need to get off the couch and workout. aka work to evolve yourself, to become a more conscious thinker. as an example: Clear your mind............how long can you go before your subconsciouss brings in a thought?? .........3 seconds..........5.........10 seconds?

Em, no thought is divine, um. Buddha, baby. So don't think, and don't post. You CAN'T post since you ain't thinking right?

No nothead will continue to be behoovin' to be groovin'. Sorry.

the Avg human being can go about 5 seconds and that has come down from 10 seconds over the last 10 years. we're going the wrong way.......You SHOULD make it your goal to hold a conscious state for 15 minutes. It may take years but in weeks you can get to 60 seconds. Good luck and I hope this doesn't offend anyone.....I respect your beliefs and only post this for you to consider.

How can I consider an illusion that was pretended to be posted by a man with no thought atall? He was not behoovin' to be groovin' anyway.

He wasn't thinking no thoughts at all. He isn't even a thought being. He HAS no thought which by definition means nothing. But he thinks this nothing is SOMETHING since he is really pretending not to think but has been guess what THINKING all the time.

Thinking wrong thoughts that is. Nice try but Confusion on the Rampage. You said that thought was primal upstairs on your post but then CLEARING your mind is the trick to beat all. NO THOUGHT, sir.

Which is it? Oh I know, from my heepy days. The pantheistic THOUGHTS OF GOD now are able to come into your bean. But this was there already. What difference does this have objectively?

And if you are one with the universe there ain't no YOU to be you. But and yet YOU think YOU have a better view of "God." Where did that come from, nirvana?

 

[JM2C]

They were not able since they didn't understand the basics, that David would see into the future the coming Messiah whom was his own progeny...

...so simple but the implications were what they could not answer really:
That Jesus himself was this very Messiah David spoke of.

What they, the Pharisees, did NOT understand was the Death, Burial, and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus base on Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 16:10.

How did David saw the Lord Jesus at the right hand of God in Psalm 110:1 if this same Lord did not resurrect? It’s all about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you read Acts 2 this is what Peter was saying to the Jews. What the Pharisees did not understand in Matthew 22:45-46 Peter explained in Acts 2.

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND. I DID NOT SAY “BELIEVE” BUT “UNDERSTAND”. IOW, YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE BUT TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

Paul said in, Ro 1:3 “regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,” This, they, the Pharisees, understood when the Lord Jesus asked them in, Mt 22:42 “What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?” [THE LORD ASKED] “The son of David,” they/Pharisees replied.

The Pharisees got this one right base on 2Sa 7:12-13, Isaiah 11:1-5 and Psalms that the Messiah would be in the lineage of David or the son of David “according to flesh” there is no argument here with the Pharisees because they were right, “the son of David”

Now, what they/Pharisees did not understand when the Lord Jesus asked them Mt 22:45 “If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” is the resurrection, or after the resurrection, the Lord Jesus would no longer be the son of David in the flesh anymore but the “Son of God” from eternity –Romans 1:4. The Pharisees could not understand that the Messiah will die, and will be buried, and will be resurrected. This they cannot comprehend and that was the reason they could not “say a word in reply” –Matt 22:46.

After the resurrection Paul said in Ro 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

These two verses in Romans 1:3-4 is very important for you to understand and that way you can differentiate the “earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus or as the son of David” in verse 3 narrated in the FOUR GOSPELS, and in verse 4 “the true divinity of the Lord Jesus as the “Son of God” from eternity.” That were narrated in Paul’s epistles.

All these were explained in Psalm 110:1 and 16:10 and further explained by Peter in Acts 2.

 

[JM2C]

Jesus is not God.He is the Son of God.

There are many things in the holy scriptures that people cannot understand because they are trying to use human wisdom to try to understand godly wisdom.

The only way one can understand it is if this knowledge is bestowed upon them.

This is called grace, and it is a gift from God.

Only those who earnestly and wholeheartedly seek Him will be blessed.

There are passages in the holy scriptures that could not have possibly come from the minds of men.

It is information given to mankind from our creator.

Coming from a JW who predicted the end of the world so many times a failed.

Dt 18:21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?”
Dt 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

 

[JM2C]

Agreed, whatever this means. I don't think it means literally the Comforter which comes to man...

...since the Comforter is said to come IN THE NAME of Jesus.
Jesus therefore is elohim, born elohim TO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD COMES.

Just under the angels, then resurrected OVER the angels, the angels being also elohim. Hebrews states it clearly.

NEVER said equal to God. At the right hand of for any culture, or monarchy or government with a prime dog...
...next to the Top One, at his right hand, his ambassador and his Jewish Shaliach.

Do you believe that God and His Spirit or the Holy Spirit are one?

Ge 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

[nothead]

What they, the Pharisees, did NOT understand was the Death, Burial, and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus base on Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 16:10.

How did David saw the Lord Jesus at the right hand of God in Psalm 110:1 if this same Lord did not resurrect? It’s all about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you read Acts 2 this is what Peter was saying to the Jews. What the Pharisees did not understand in Matthew 22:45-46 Peter explained in Acts 2.

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND. I DID NOT SAY “BELIEVE” BUT “UNDERSTAND”. IOW, YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE BUT TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

Paul said in, Ro 1:3 “regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,” This, they, the Pharisees, understood when the Lord Jesus asked them in, Mt 22:42 “What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?” [THE LORD ASKED] “The son of David,” they/Pharisees replied.

The Pharisees got this one right base on 2Sa 7:12-13, Isaiah 11:1-5 and Psalms that the Messiah would be in the lineage of David or the son of David “according to flesh” there is no argument here with the Pharisees because they were right, “the son of David”

Now, what they/Pharisees did not understand when the Lord Jesus asked them Mt 22:45 “If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” is the resurrection, or after the resurrection, the Lord Jesus would no longer be the son of David in the flesh anymore but the “Son of God” from eternity –Romans 1:4. The Pharisees could not understand that the Messiah will die, and will be buried, and will be resurrected. This they cannot comprehend and that was the reason they could not “say a word in reply” –Matt 22:46.

After the resurrection Paul said in Ro 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

These two verses in Romans 1:3-4 is very important for you to understand and that way you can differentiate the “earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus or as the son of David” in verse 3 narrated in the FOUR GOSPELS, and in verse 4 “the true divinity of the Lord Jesus as the “Son of God” from eternity.” That were narrated in Paul’s epistles.

All these were explained in Psalm 110:1 and 16:10 and further explained by Peter in Acts 2.

Even if the Pharisees did not understand the Resurrection and David did, or the question was centering on this, how does resurrection translate to the divinity of the Christ? Most all verses speaking of the resurrection says God raised up Christ. One verse in John has Christ saying he will raise "this temple" up in three days. I believe this means secondarily, after God breathes the ruach of life back into him.

All the other verses have him being raised up, by God in juxtaposition to him.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The word God itself is ancient. It is a title not meant to be referred to as the "creator" or the Creation itself. When a human being attains "GOD" status this means they have evolved to the highest level possible that a human being can evolve to in physical form as it pertains to Knowledge and Wisdom. Jesus, whose true name was Jmmanuel Apollonius of Tyana, was a God. A God of wisdom - in his own evolution of consciousness he performed feats deemed to be miracles by misunderstanding ones.

The name emmanuel exists in historical text but theologians would have you believe that means the enlightened one. Remember the first inception of the bible was written by some people people who still thought the earth was flat and that the sun rotated around the earth. Its awfully trusting to trust these same people with the vast responsibility of setting a spiritual path for all humanity.

There is proof today that "consciousness", or purposeful thought, has a direct relation to matter. yes physical matter is influenced by thought. This is not opinion it is a proven fact. If you want references I will send them. Many people believe the "dark matter" or unknown matter expanding the universe is actually the consciousness of The Creation. In the same way our minds can manipulate our environment at the subatomic level which ultimately transcends into the physical world, this same consciousness is how the Creation is creating the universe. When we learn the universe is the result of thought and that this is actually what JESUS was truly teaching, we can stop religious disagreements and move on to being normal human beings. Get out of Pre-K and move into kindergarten. Earth has been stuck here for millenia. There is also proof the first inception of matthew came from the TJ. The Talmud Jmmanuel or teachings of Jmmanuel. You will see the entire christian religion is based on the teachings of a man who never had anything to do with their teachings. He taught love, life, wisdom, knowledge of nature and that purpose and meaning of life is consciousness based evolution in love wisdom and knowledge. WE ARE responsible for ourselves - free will. There is no plan for us except to evolve spiritually. I think many religions have made beautiful stories which sound divine. Do whatever you want your whole life and in the end all is forgiven and you go to heaven forever. But that's like trying to get in shape by sitting on the couch and having faith you will get in shape. You need to get off the couch and workout. aka work to evolve yourself, to become a more conscious thinker. as an example: Clear your mind............how long can you go before your subconsciouss brings in a thought?? .........3 seconds..........5.........10 seconds? the Avg human being can go about 5 seconds and that has come down from 10 seconds over the last 10 years. we're going the wrong way.......You SHOULD make it your goal to hold a conscious state for 15 minutes. It may take years but in weeks you can get to 60 seconds. Good luck and I hope this doesn't offend anyone.....I respect your beliefs and only post this for you to consider.

Your post was of interest to me yes. I think it makes a lot of sense even though I skimmed it, haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Coming from a JW who predicted the end of the world so many times a failed.

Dt 18:21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?”
Dt 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

That is a good point. I wonder what the answer is? I think they say the light is getting brighter..

 

[nothead]

Do you believe that God and His Spirit or the Holy Spirit are one?

Ge 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The Holy Spirit is derived or maybe rather SENT by the One True God. His ontology or not, possibly a sent thingy which is not exactly from his being, although RUACH and WIND seems to imply this, especially the Ruach of God.

One thing is for sure, the Holy Spirit is derived from God. Not Him en whole or exhaustively.

Also the light and radiance associated with God is so very close to Him, it (Holy Spirit) may be Him in part.

 

[nothead]

In response to the oft-claimed view that only God can propitiate the sins against God...

1) Jesus was doing the WILL of God, in the NAME of God, and within bounds of the AUTHORITY of God, which will suffice.

2) God by definition cannot be tempted, cannot die, cannot sin and cannot be less than all-powerful and all-knowing. Jesus said HIS FATHER could send "more than twelve legions of angels." Not him, but his Father. Jesus did not know three things for sure, who would sit at his left and right hands, who was the one whom touched his hem, and when he would come back again.

3) RATHER God showed us, as Jews first that a man can do the Law, Shema. This would be the first thing the scribe would realize, in Mk 12, having recited Shema, and engaged in trying to DO Shema, that his own failure would then require his "lords" propitiation whom was the Christ and which was fulfilled by the Christ. Christ as God does not fulfill Shema, since God can do no less. And maybe God is excluded from Shema, since this would mean He has to love Himself with all of Him. But the man annointed who did fulfill Shema, is the hope and the glory, since he hath OVERCOME THE WORLD.

Thus the Christ of us sayeth to the scribe, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." This amazing statement was not even said to his own followers, at that time when he was here.

Consider the scribe's own statement of affirmation that the Shema is the number one commandment Christ said was primal: "...no other but he." This is crux and context of Shema, boys and girls.

 

[nothead]

Nothead rants on:

To say God (Jesus) fulfilled Shema and never sinned is to say nothing at all. Since God is God and cannot sin, neither can He lie since He is NOT a man.

Numbers 23

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nothead rants on:

To say God (Jesus) fulfilled Shema and never sinned is to say nothing at all. Since God is God and cannot sin, neither can He lie since He is NOT a man.

Numbers 23

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

But as God can replicate his own self, then it does not have to be the God you speak of. That is why there are two called God in Hebrews one... that's part of the NT that you keep ignoring because it does line up with your understanding of the OT

 

[nothead]

But as God can replicate his own self, then it does not have to be the God you speak of. That is why there are two called God in Hebrews one... that's part of the NT that you keep ignoring because it does line up with your understanding of the OT

I can quote ALL of Hebrews one and PROVE Paul or the real author of Hebrews did not mean Two Gods or Powers in Heaven...

...knowing also that you yourself do not take the ORTHODOX Trinitarian position that Two Gods in Heaven are not true, only two Persons of God in Heaven:

1 God, [YHWH] who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,

Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Reference to Psalm 2...then Deut 32 (NLT)...

God did not manifest the Son, here it says the FATHER manifested the Son.
God did not manifest HIMself, YHWH manifested JESUS.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalm 45, said to a king of David first, in far view the Messiah, ELOHIM. This reference to "O GOD" cannot mean God Almighty, but a man elevated. To 'elohim' sir. And in fact 'elohim' is the actual term in the Massoretic Text. And the Hebrew text before it. Traditionally Solomon, who was not CONSIDERED God Almighty.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

The repeat and the possessive THY GOD means this elohim HAS an elohim which cannot be true for an equal "God" according to JisG terp.

Secondly, the repeat and possessive sense gives a different meaning to "God" of course, idiomatically.

Thirdly if God is meant in the second reference, ABOVE HIS PEERS means nada anything which makes sense. A trinitarian has to consider the dual natures of Jesus, alternately, which makes LESS sense. JisG too, for that matter.

The sense in which they have to consider this, Jesus is elevated by his own self as a part of the three person Trinity, above his peers as a human nature and not God-nature.

WHOO HOO, CONFUSION on the Rampage...remember boys and girls, YHWH your elohim, is elohim OF elohim... Deut 10:17.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

How do we know this THOU is God and not Jesus? Since the passage here is not Psalm 45 but 102. The passage is grammatically more likely Jesus BY ITSELF IN HEBREWS only if Hebrews itself was not referring here to another Psalm.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

This is another Psalm, 110 to be sure...and YHWH is in view here, with Jesus as Messiah in far view, again a king in near-view.

14 Are they, [ELOHIM] not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

All prophets and authors of scripture are either HEEDING the spirits sent by God in the Psalms, or elohim themselves TO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD COMES.

He the author in his innate GENIUS ties the end of chapter one to the beginning of the chapter. Whoo HOO. Genius he was.

This is the true view of Hebrews, sir. Blue letters, God. Magenta letters, king or Jesus in view. Green letters, my inserts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I can quote ALL of Hebrews one and PROVE Paul or the real author of Hebrews did not mean Two Gods or Powers in Heaven...

...knowing also that you yourself do not take the ORTHODOX Trinitarian position that Two Gods in Heaven are not true, only two Persons of God in Heaven:

1 God, [YHWH] who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,

Reference to Psalm 2...then Deut 32 (NLT)...

God did not manifest the Son, here it says the FATHER manifested the Son.
God did not manifest HIMself, YHWH manifested JESUS.



Psalm 45, said to a king of David first, in far view the Messiah, ELOHIM. This reference to "O GOD" cannot mean God Almighty, but a man elevated. To 'elohim' sir. And in fact 'elohim' is the actual term in the Massoretic Text. And the Hebrew text before it. Traditionally Solomon, who was not CONSIDERED God Almighty.





The repeat and the possessive THY GOD means this elohim HAS an elohim which cannot be true for an equal "God" according to JisG terp.

Secondly, the repeat and possessive sense gives a different meaning to "God" of course, idiomatically.

Thirdly if God is meant in the second reference, ABOVE HIS PEERS means nada anything which makes sense. A trinitarian has to consider the dual natures of Jesus, alternately, which makes LESS sense. JisG too, for that matter.

The sense in which they have to consider this, Jesus is elevated by his own self as a part of the three person Trinity, above his peers as a human nature and not God-nature.

WHOO HOO, CONFUSION on the Rampage...remember boys and girls, YHWH your elohim, is elohim OF elohim... Deut 10:17.



How do we know this THOU is God and not Jesus? Since the passage here is not Psalm 45 but 102. The passage is grammatically more likely Jesus BY ITSELF IN HEBREWS only if Hebrews itself was not referring here to another Psalm.



This is another Psalm, 110 to be sure...and YHWH is in view here, with Jesus as Messiah in far view, again a king in near-view.



All prophets and authors of scripture are either HEEDING the spirits sent by God in the Psalms, or elohim themselves TO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD COMES.

He the author in his innate GENIUS ties the end of chapter one to the beginning of the chapter. Whoo HOO. Genius he was.

This is the true view of Hebrews, sir. Blue letters, God. Magenta letters, king or Jesus in view. Green letters, my inserts.

I appreciate the time you took, but you are still doing what I once did... ignoring the written word. The NT says plainly that he is God. It is written in black and white: ho theos. You have to ignore it to explain it. If scripture is true (and it is) then the NT must be correct also. Scripture, as with all things, evolves over time.

 

[nothead]

I appreciate the time you took, but you are still doing what I once did... ignoring the written word. The NT says plainly that he is God. It is written in black and white: ho theos. You have to ignore it to explain it. If scripture is true (and it is) then the NT must be correct also. Scripture, as with all things, evolves over time.

Said one time and that's it, eh? Done did it. Settles it.

Except the language does not correlate with the reality. Reality just went right over your head sir.

Purpose of each synoptic, to be an (independent) gospel, with the foundations of gospel intact, autonomously. Each author compiled from his sources (internal, external, inspirational), the foundations of faith, the things the reader needs to know foundationally of the New Way of Christ.

And the nary a hint or mention of Christ being God is indicator as to whether Jesus is God, as a proposition of faith. This is the second time I've repeated this and you have not addressed it. JOHN'S gospel is where most so-called proof texts of Jesus' deity comes from, and too, this example in Jn 20:28.

There is more to exegesis than what you want it to say. All things must reconcile, the disparate things, and the important things. This issue is too important to lightly consider. Gordon Fee: First Exegetical Principle, consider the historical context in general.

And the synoptics must be considered both in light of John and independently for the true gospels they were. Mark and Matthew and Luke surely heard of the event of Thomas, or were there themselves. His statement "My Lord and my ho theos," was more likely said in Aramaic. And the meaning is not NECESSARILY God Almighty, but the 10% meanings of "elohim" (Aramaic counterpart), which were meant as OTHER than God, which was translated, "God." From "theos" which is not even God always either. I posit the definite article does not either make it absolutely one meaning. These other three would have repeated it more than once or twice if Jesus truly was God. But in fact they mentioned it nought.

NO mention of the information they would have to know Jesus was God BEFORE the event. No information as to how Jesus could be God and the Father could be also, the REQUISITE they would have to have in order to know they were not breaking the First Command of their faith.

No information for us as to how they went from asking, in all three synoptics, "What sort of MAN calms the winds and the seas?" to knowing this sort of MAN was God too.

No information for us as to how this man COULD be man and God at the same time, an impossibility if you think about it. No information for us as to why He would change His mind, considering Numbers 23:

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

For modern man, all these separate fields of NO INFORMATION would not necessarily be prohibitive, in believing Jesus is God...but for early readers then in the first generations, these kinds of things would weigh heavily in how they read and UNDERSTAND the written Word.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Said one time and that's it, eh? Done did it. Settles it.

Except the language does not correlate with the reality. Reality just went right over your head sir.

Purpose of each synoptic, to be an (independent) gospel, with the foundations of gospel intact, autonomously. Each author compiled from his sources (internal, external, inspirational), the foundations of faith, the things the reader needs to know foundationally of the New Way of Christ.

And the nary a hint or mention of Christ being God is indicator as to whether Jesus is God, as a proposition of faith. This is the second time I've repeated this and you have not addressed it. JOHN'S gospel is where most so-called proof texts of Jesus' deity comes from, and too, this example in Jn 20:28.

There is more to exegesis than what you want it to say. All things must reconcile, the disparate things, and the important things. This issue is too important to lightly consider. Gordon Fee: First Exegetical Principle, consider the historical context in general.

And the synoptics must be considered both in light of John and independently for the true gospels they were. Mark and Matthew and Luke surely heard of the event of Thomas, or were there themselves. His statement "My Lord and my ho theos," was more likely said in Aramaic. And the meaning is not NECESSARILY God Almighty, but the 10% meanings of "elohim" (Aramaic counterpart), which were meant as OTHER than God, which was translated, "God." From "theos" which is not even God always either. I posit the definite article does not either make it absolutely one meaning. These other three would have repeated it more than once or twice if Jesus truly was God. But in fact they mentioned it nought.

NO mention of the information they would have to know Jesus was God BEFORE the event. No information as to how Jesus could be God and the Father could be also, the REQUISITE they would have to have in order to know they were not breaking the First Command of their faith.

No information for us as to how they went from asking, in all three synoptics, "What sort of MAN calms the winds and the seas?" to knowing this sort of MAN was God too.

No information for us as to how this man COULD be man and God at the same time, an impossibility if you think about it. No information for us as to why He would change His mind, considering Numbers 23:

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

For modern man, all these separate fields of NO INFORMATION would not necessarily be prohibitive, in believing Jesus is God...but for early readers then in the first generations, these kinds of things would weigh heavily in how they read and UNDERSTAND the written Word.

Well sir, I think we are at an impasse. You are left with the fact that, to you, the NT is NOT the word of God. That is a bad place to be in. If you accept what it says, then you have to understand it in context. You are ignoring it, sir. Difficult to discuss something when the person in question will not accept what is written. It is the word of God. I think you should consider that sir, I really do.

 

[nothead]

Well sir, I think we are at an impasse. You are left with the fact that, to you, the NT is NOT the word of God. That is a bad place to be in. If you accept what it says, then you have to understand it in context. You are ignoring it, sir. Difficult to discuss something when the person in question will not accept what is written. It is the word of God. I think you should consider that sir, I really do.

What do you think the Word of God is? What YOU say?

What the ENGLISH says? Jn 20:28

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

The KOINE says? HO THEOS.

The ARAMAIC says? "the alaha?"

Note: the Aramaic is closely related to the Hebrew. The Hebrew is after all the "mother tongue" of the OT. "Alaha" means "elohim."

The "mother tongue" defns are root and basic. Jesus would have to know this, since the Temple in Jerusalem used the Hebrew.

Hint: Thomas probably spoke in Aramaic, John translates into Koine. The translation, MY ALAHA, is HO THEOS [of me]. The translation of the Koine in English is "The Lord of me and the God of me."

So then I don't diss the Bible or the scripture at all. The translational gaps are key to understanding how for instance this verse does not impede or contradict John's other Abrahamic Monotheistic verses:

Jn 20:17

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jn 5:

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

...and the much maligned and plain text of Jn 17:

This is eternal life that they believe YOU the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom YOU sent.

 

[nothead]

Abrahamic Monotheism was the religion of the first gen saints of Jesus.

Including Christ.

This says it all. Really no more needs to be said unless the hagglers want to haggle.

So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

Robert Evans was the last greatest to post? He is giving up?

No other ones? Nothead can claim victory and do the MC Hammer impersonation?

Wait, I have to put on my harem pants...

...okay where's the music? Oh here it comes. Victory dance coming up...

Look left, look right, shoulder shrug and roll....turn on the tape, let's get it on:

Can't touch this
Can't touch this
Can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)
Can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)

My-my-my-my music keeps me so hard makes me say oh my Lord
Thank you for blessing me with a mind to rhyme and two hype feet
That's good when you know you're down
A super dope homeboy from the Oaktown
And I'm known as such
And this is a beat uh u can't touch

I told you homeboy u can't touch this
Yeah that's how we're livin' and you know u can't touch this
Look in my eyes man u can't touch this
You know let me bust the funky lyrics u can't touch this



Read more: MC Hammer - U Can't Touch This Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

[JM2C]

Robert Evans was the last greatest to post? He is giving up?

No other ones? Nothead can claim victory and do the MC Hammer impersonation?
Wait, I have to put on my harem pants...
...okay where's the music? Oh here it comes. Victory dance coming up...
Look left, look right, shoulder shrug and roll....turn on the tape, let's get it on:
Can't touch this
Can't touch this
Can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)
Can't touch this (oh-oh oh oh oh-oh-oh)
My-my-my-my music keeps me so hard makes me say oh my Lord
Thank you for blessing me with a mind to rhyme and two hype feet
That's good when you know you're down
A super dope homeboy from the Oaktown
And I'm known as such
And this is a beat uh u can't touch
I told you homeboy u can't touch this
Yeah that's how we're livin' and you know u can't touch this
Look in my eyes man u can't touch this
You know let me bust the funky lyrics u can't touch this
Read more: MC Hammer - U Can't Touch This Lyrics | MetroLyrics

THE OP SAYS “Jesus ain’t God” but Isaiah proved him wrong. The Lord Jesus is God.

Isaiah’s 21:16 Dead Dea Scroll just corrected your IGNORANCE, SIR.

There is no VOWEL POINTS in the ancient Hebrew text and the dead sea scroll of Isaiah’ 21:16 where it says “Lord” as “ADNY” is the same as the one in Psalm 110:1 where the “Lord” REFERRING TO THE Lord Jesus Christ, after the LORD[YHWH], was change BY THE MASORITES to “adoni” which translate to “master”. IOW, there was no “adoni/master” in the original Hebrew text base on the Dead Sea Scroll, but “ADNY” WHICH MEANS THE “LORD” OR GOD.

Isaiah 21:16 DSS VERSION: For thus has the Lord (ADNY/GOD/Hebrew/DSS Version) said to me, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail;

Here Isaiah was talking about GOD/ADNY. IOW, Psalm 110:1 should read like this, “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Jn 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

 

[JM2C]

Robert Evans was the last greatest to post? He is giving up?

No other ones?

You have to understand why the Masorites changed ADNY/God to adoni to make it look like a master instead of GOD. Have you ever thought of that? What were they trying to hide my friend?

For example, Irenaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly wrote a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive.

According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.

My question is, why Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome -ALL PRO JEWISH- after a Century or two AD, needed or even bother to translate the LXX/Septuagint//OG, and based these translations on the existing Hebrew text at that time [1st-2nd CE] and not from the Ancient Hebrew [300 BCE] that was used to translate to Greek LXX/Septuagint/OG?

For the simple reason, these translations were in fact nothing but their own [PRO JEWISH] interpretations of the Septuagint-OG, BECAUSE this, the LXX/Septuagint/OG, proved that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God in the New Testament that we are using today, and that was the reason for all these translations and interpretations.

Therefore, by translating-interpreting by these people, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome, could somehow disprove from their [PRO JEWISH] translations-interpretations that the LXX/Septuagint/OG was not really what it was saying about who Jesus really is, the Christ of God, the Son of living God, and even the apostles’ writings, and now the New Testament.