Jesus Christ: the greatest story ever told?

[muhammad_isa]

I am in the C of E at the moment and know they are trinitarian and pray to the Lord Jesus.

They?
Do we all have to believe a creed, just because an organised church says so?
This "trinitarian thing" goes back a long way. It goes back to the time when Emperors could be either so-called Arian or Trinitarian, in the 4th century AD.
..and the trinitarians made it illegal not to believe trinity, and it was a punishable offence up to the 18th century in UK.
What a shame, that a church should be so politicised.

I do hope King Charles manages to reform things.
I liked Archbishop Rowan Williams.
He was very well-educated.

The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son however and the Father and Son are in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is in the Father and in the Son.
It's all very simple really.

One doesn't need to believe all that, to understand what Jesus taught in the Gospels.
No one should be forced to believe something that is not comprehensible.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I suspect that the Jewish Hebrew experts would also have to say that strictly and according to the language the Lord could be a compound one in the Shema.

No, it cannot be a compound at all in the Shema, nor in any other part of the Tanakh. This is one of the problems with translations.

Nothing in the Hebrew text makes the following into a compound.

The red brackets are around the Name of Hashem and it does not translate into "Lord." Further, in the Torah it is made clear that Israelis/Jews were shown so we would know that there is nothing with/on the level of/next to/etc. Hashem.

Red - The Israeli people were shown so we sould know.

Green - that Hashem He is The Elohim, there is no other with him/next to him/etc.

The following may help.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That echad in Deut 6:4 can be seen as a compound one is agreed by Hebrew experts.

No. That is not true. The Hebrew text does not support your assertion.

This may help you understand further what I mean.

 

[Brian2]

They?
Do we all have to believe a creed, just because an organised church says so?
Thsi "trintarian thing" goes back a long way. It goes back to the time when Emperors could be either so-called Arian or Trinitarian, in the 4th century AD.
..and the trinitarians made it illegal not to believe trinity, and it was a punishable offence up to the 18th century in UK.
What a shame, that a church should be so politicised.

It's a shame that a church should be so politicised and that same goes for Islam also.
The deity of Jesus goes back to those who wrote the New Testament and to the Apostolic Fathers also, the ones who came straight after the apostles and who were associated with them.
For 300 years the deity of Jesus was believed (or so the early writings show) and then some people disagreed and ended up forcing the church to make the belief formal. Before that the deity was recognised and the nature of the relationship was discussed. It was heretics who forced the hand of the Church.

One doesn't need to believe all that, to understand what Jesus taught in the Gospels.
No one should be forced to believe something that is not comprehensible.

So now there is formal doctrines but probably most Christians (including myself) have not read the really formal stuff and just still discuss the relationship, but we do know, from the Bible that Jesus is deity, just as we know from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is a living being and is deity also.
I bet there are things in Islam that you have to ask the Imam about if you want to get some understanding.
If it was me I would need to know how come it is said that Muhammad is the Paraclete of John 14,15 and 16 but according to the Bible the Paraclete in the Holy Spirit who came to the disciples He was promised to at Pentecost?
I would also want to know why Jesus said that He needed to die and rise again but Muhammad said that did not happen.?
But that is not what we were talking about.

 

[Brian2]

No. That is not true. The Hebrew text does not support your assertion.

This may help you understand further what I mean.

In what sense is 'echad' [one] used in the Shema?
Well thanks but that was no help for me. I should have known that since the context was used at this site above to decide on the meaning of echad that it would be used by other Jews, and since for Jews the context is one where the Word of God and the Spirit of God which come from God are not called God, echad in the Shema does not mean a compound one.
Nevertheless since there are passages where echad is used to mean a compound one (and no such passages exist for yachid as far as I know) that would mean that in a literal sense, echad could mean a compound one at Deut 6:4 if someone else was looking at the passage and their context of God was that God is a compound one. Someone like a Christian who is told in the New Testament that Jesus is divine, the Son of God who is in God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In what sense is 'echad' [one] used in the Shema?

To mean that Hashem is unique and unlike anything. There is nothing with Hashem, like Hashem, or connected to Hashem. It is also very specifically talking about Hashem and nothing else. That is why Hashem's name is actually there and not some other term.

 

[Brian2]

No, it cannot be a compound at all in the Shema, nor in any other part of the Tanakh. This is one of the problems with translations.

Nothing in the Hebrew text makes the following into a compound.

View attachment 67447

The red brackets are around the Name of Hashem and it does not translate into "Lord." Further, in the Torah it is made clear that Israelis/Jews were shown so we would know that there is nothing with/on the level of/next to/etc. Hashem.

View attachment 67448

Red - The Israeli people were shown so we sould know.

Green - that Hashem He is The Elohim, there is no other with him/next to him/etc.

The following may help.

Thanks for that, it was interesting but of course I do not believe that the pre human Jesus had a beginning. I believe He was always with and in His Father who is the source of His life. That is also what I would say about the Spirit of God.

 

[Brian2]

To mean that Hashem is unique and unlike anything. There is nothing with Hashem, like Hashem, or connected to Hashem. It is also very specifically talking about Hashem and nothing else. That is why Hashem's name is actually there and not some other term.

In the New Testament it is made clear that the Son has the same name as His Father and that the 2 are one thing and the Father created everything through His Son. God spoke His Word at the creation.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Thanks for that, it was interesting but of course I do not believe that the pre human Jesus had a beginning. I believe He was always with and in His Father who is the source of His life. That is also what I would say about the Spirit of God.

As you stated, that is your "beleif," and not here to change what you have chosen to "beleive." Just be aware that your beleif is not supported by the original Hebrew text of the Torah/Tanakh.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In the New Testament it is made clear that the Son has the same name as His Father and that the 2 are one thing and the Father created everything through His Son. God spoke His Word at the creation.

Then the NT has no basis whatsoever in the Hebrew Torah/Tanakh. I.e. the authors of the Greek NT invented that dichotomy and the fact that they couldn't source a Hebrew text for that idea means that it is something that all Jews should avoid, as well as any Noachide.

 

[Brian2]

As you stated, that is your "beleif," and not here to change what you have chosen to "beleive." Just be aware that your beleif is not supported by the original Hebrew text of the Torah/Tanakh.

If you say so.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Nevertheless since there are passages where echad is used to mean a compound one (and no such passages exist for yachid as far as I know) that would mean that in a literal sense, echad could mean a compound one at Deut 6:4 if someone else was looking at the passage and their context of God was that God is a compound one. Someone like a Christian who is told in the New Testament that Jesus is divine, the Son of God who is in God.

No sane person who knows Hebrew would agree with your statement here. It is one that requires one to accept the Greek NT first in order to try to do the mental gymnastics needed to try and make that idea seem as if it is supported in Hebrew.

Simply put, in the Hebrew Text of the Torah/Tanakh Hashem made it clear that there are compond unities/trinities/etc. with Hashem and the idea is Avodah Zara (foreign) to the Torah. This is probably the reason why all of the original Jewish Christians disappeared off the historical map 2 generations after they started.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

If you say so.

No. Because Hashem and the Torah in Hebrew says so.

 

[Brian2]

That us correct, because Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not the messiah. And it says nothing about being raised from the dead -- you made that part up..

I believe the servant is the Messiah and the prophecy has a double meaning, one for Israel.
Israel is the firstborn son of God and the Messiah also is. Israel is used in some prophecies as a type of the Messiah. The Messiah after all is an Israelite and what the Messiah does is what Israel has done. Not every Israelite has to have done something for Israel to have done it. Just one is OK.
In the below part of Isa 53 we can see that the servant was killed and buried but lived on to see his offspring. So a resurrection imo.
Isa 53:7He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

No, when it speaks of the LORD all caps, that is God, not the messiah. The messiah is not God. Although the messiah will administer justice, since he will rule, this is not the same as THE judgment, which is done by God, not the messiah..

When the Tanakh passages tell us that God is coming to judge the earth, that to me is the Messiah, Jesus because Jesus said that the Father has given all judgement to the Son because He is a man.

Not really. I have been debating christians a long time. And you really aren't saying anything that I haven't heard before. I think you just need to accept the fact that Jews study the Tanakh and do not see it saying the things that Christians claim.

Yes that's true.

 

[Brian2]

No. Because Hashem and the Torah in Hebrew says so.

And the Jews are the only ones who understand the Hebrew' I know.

 

[pearl]

When the Tanakh passages tell us that God is coming to judge the earth, that to me is the Messiah, Jesus because Jesus said that the Father has given all judgement to the Son because He is a man.

But that is not the intent of author of Isaih. Whether the servant is an individual or a collectivity is not clear. More important is the description of the mission of the servant. In the early Church and throughout Christian tradition, these poems have been applied to Christ.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe the servant is the Messiah and the prophecy has a double meaning, one for Israel.

If you are going to play with it that way, why stop at two meaning? Why not have three, or ten, or a thousand?

 

[muhammad_isa]

For 300 years the deity of Jesus was believed (or so the early writings show) and then some people disagreed and ended up forcing the church to make the belief formal. Before that the deity was recognised and the nature of the relationship was discussed. It was heretics who forced the hand of the Church.

No .. history was manipulated for political reasons.
It is not heresy to be a Jew, but it is heresy to be a Christian who doesn't believe that Jesus is God?
Why were so many early writings ordered to be burnt by Trinitarian Emperors?
[rhetorical question]

Even Constantine himself, died with a so-called Arian belief.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And the Jews are the only ones who understand the Hebrew' I know.

Yes, we Jews understand correctly the texts of our direct ancestors received, wrote, perserved, and transmitted to us, etc.. You are correct about that. Now you are catching on.

YET, you don't have to beleive us on that one.

 

[rational experiences]

A man human is in mind one self.

Human man. His own leader is one man. Says all man's mind.

Men his brothers infer he's a leader by agreement only. By inferred what he spoke.

They hear listen think agree. How a human man becomes the leader.

On earth O planet is the planet rock.
Heavens is a heavens.

Before the saviour ice and a non hitting wandering asteroid star mass that passed by earth...another saviour.

Huge trees were rooted in ground. Food trees different. Climate different. Giants life of cold blooded thick skinned creatures. Lived.

A huge star fall eruptive earth killed off the giant cell.

Life in nature became small cells as were animals...and humans had never lived as a giants life.

Ignored by arrogant Theist scientists today.

Today those ignorant men look at microbes and now compare nature as giant cells and animal humans as giant cells.

Getting ready by machines....humans weaponry to convert our life. As life ours in consciousness says began as smaller cells. Is how an evil mind thinks.

Making quotes about blue sky gases with white clouds. Not colours in law.

Own no colours as a heavens.

As the teaching said Jesus father was God....and not the coat of many colours themed by scientists.

Yet here you are telling stories about what secrets you think you know. Yet you don't.

Mr destroyer in text was also determined to be the man Theist as anti Christ. Yet no man is Christ as gods Inheritor was Christ. Men theoried separateness owned the storytelling of Christ was the warning.

Documents talked about king rich men science owner brothers lords of trade. Who was not the first man life hurt as he was natural man.

You say poor man looking back which was in fact a lie. As king rich lords scientists wrote the document assessment as men whose life was attacked.

And they were rich. As proof evil men write the documentation. As first man brain prickled was a natural man not a poor man ever.

Why theism of any man is a lie. As natural everything is first in human life laws. Theists designers are life's destroyer is our human...as the warnings.

You all ignore the warning because you choose to ignore the warnings.