So Jesus is not God?

[Soapy]

No, your statement is incongruous. You can be both parent and friend Soapy.

If you are a Parent, try it. I think you'll be please with the results. God certainly did the same with Abraham.



So scripture lies?

John 15:15 - Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.​

James 2:23 - And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.​

And getting back to the OP, did you forget that Jesus laid down his life for his friends?

John 15:13 - Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.​

So we know God called Abraham His friend. We also know Jesus called his apostles "friends". What do you think happened afterwards? Did Abraham and the apostles proclaim God and Jesus was no friend of theirs??? Did they look this up on the internet?



Well that may be the problem...you're looking things up on the internet rather than the bible.



Scripture please? Or do I look this up somewhere else??

Oh dear ... Jesus is not God... and God is Father.

So your premise is false. Jesus is a human Being (though a sinless one) and is no different to any human Being in any respect of personage. Therefore he can be ‘friend’. However, the differential aspect considered here is that he presented himself as a TEACHER... and a teacher is, like a Patent, not a friend... SO, after passing them through the fire of his teachings, Jesus RAISES THEM TO HIS LEVEL ... the apostles are to become teachers, themselves... THEREFORE they are no longer SERVANTS (did you read the ‘No longer call you SERVANTS’) but are NOW called ‘FRIENDS’ because they are akin to him.... WE ARE NEVER AKIN TO GOD!!!

And what are you asking me if I look things up on the Internet... OF COURSE I LOOK THINGS UP...!!!

Why don’t you ask me if I look things up in the scriptures... DOH!!!!

What I don’t do is present ‘OTHER VIEWS’ that are not part of scriptures - I look up things that compound the scriptural views and that are aligned with my belief.

For Abraham to be considered a friend to God or God to consider Abraham as a friend does not indicate Abraham is on the level of Almighty God. It is linked with Jesus calling the Apostles the same in that Abraham and the Apostles are ‘trusted persons’. Abraham carries out a faithful act, an act so wonderful and noble that God fully trusted him in all things.

What exactly is your version of the meaning of Friends? Is a friend not a trusted person?

And in any case, where is Jesus said to be ‘Father’ to the Apostles .. nowhere? It says he was TEACHER, MASTER, RABBI...

When you were at school, we’re you ever “a friend to your teacher”? I’m going to answer for you and say, “No!”.

And when you were a child, were your parents “your friend”? Again, I answer for you: “No!”.

Why,... because it is an unsafe condition. A parent should NEVER be friend to their children. It is a FALSE EMOTIVE mindset and usually from a feminine viewpoint. A parent tries to placate their child by claiming that the child is their friend.... wrong wrong wrong!!! The child should see the parent as just that: ‘Their PARENT’!!!

Should a child Have to consider his parent(s) as ‘trustable’??? Oh dear! That is an unwholesome situation for the child to have to be in!!!!

 

[moorea944]

Correct



Incorrect.

But no worries! For purposes of this thread we've banished any Trinitarian thinking and now we're all a bunch of happy Unitarians trying to rightly divide the word of God.



I don't see why not.

Jesus is the Father of our future. As various translations put it:

Douay-Rheims Bible
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.​

or literally:

Young's Literal Translation
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.​

Whoa! Now I am confused.

The Watchtower clearly states that Jesus is a "Mighty God", and now Tigger 2, a Jehovah Witness, says differently. Who are we to believe?

You're not "running ahead of the chariot" here, are you?



That would be correct. The difference, of course, is that the names in Isaiah 9:6 are used to describe the child born, rather than simply serve as a "pointer" to our heavenly Father. So the names would obviously be intended to describe the person who bore them.

Otherwise this child would be no different than every other "Tom, Dick, and Harry" in Israel. Just give your child a "pointer" name, and you too could be the prophet!!

In other words, this child would have the characteristics of these names, and not simply "point" to someone else who does.




Did you forget the "child is born..." part directly preceding this?? Also, I can't seem to find this peculiar translation anywhere. As such I suspect this is your own personal translation.

Which of course brings us back to the question: Is Tigger 2's translation more accurate, more "honestly translated", than the NWT?

It appears to me, however wrongly, that once the Watchtower started modifying scripture the "cat was out of the bag". As such, it would not be unexpected if members feel they could make "needed adjustments" by doing the same.

In any event, these have been interesting and entertaining asides from the OP, which still remains unanswered.

Scripture becomes easier to harmonize when Jesus is God, so difficult when he is not!

[Scripture becomes easier to harmonize when Jesus is God, so difficult when he is not!]

Actually, it's quit the opposite.... To "make" Jesus God or our Heavenly Father, totally degrades our Creator!

God was never called a man for one thing, but to say that Jesus is God? Awful!!

Besides, that is false doctrine. We have to remember that the Trinity was "put into" religion in around 325 ish... AD by Constantine and the console of Nicea. No one in the OT believed in a "coming Messiah" that was already here, pre-existing in Heaven. And to make a man a God or to make a man 100% man and 100% God is disgusting. We only find that in movies and Greek stories.

Plus, what is so difficult when Jesus is not God?............ Should be easier to understand. Doesnt scripture tell us that God was working "through" His son?....

If you need some help, let me know, i'll show you some wonderful points in scripture. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Soapy]

The Son to be born SHALL BE ....

‘Son’, means : “He who FULLY does the will of the Father”

Jesus proves himself as the only one of humanity who fully carries out the Will of his (Our) Father: YHWH, Almighty God! Thus YHWH says, “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased...!”

So why is there a claim that Jesus is the ONLY Son of God?... Well, Jesus was NOT the ONLY EVER Son of God.... did you know that?

A [pure] Son of God is 100% sinless, holy, dutiful, and faithful to his Father... Did you know that ADAM was such a man ......???

From the day of his enlivening by the Holy Spirit breath of YHWH until the day he sinned by giving way to his wife, Eve, and ate of the fruit of the tree that YHWH ordered them not to eat (not because the fruit was bad but it was a test of loyalty) ADAM WAS:

• ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38)

So why don’t we acknowledge this very necessary fact? ... because Christian belief on the fallacy level led by, primarily trinitarianism, and expressly, Catholicism, desires to destroy the truth that Jesus Christ was:

• ‘Made in the fashion of the first man, Adam’
• ‘Is the second, and Last, Adam’
• ‘Adam’ (in the day of his creation) meant ‘Image of YHWH in flesh’
• Adam was created sinless and holy... his body (Soul of earth) was inert before having a spirit put into it by the breathe of YHWH
• Jesus was creates sinless and holy... his body (Egg of Mary) was inert before having a spirit put into it by the overshadowing of YHWH’s breathe of life: the Holy Spirit...

Adam sinned, and lost his place as ‘Son of God’... so another was brought up to take his place: Jesus Christ (in Isaiah, he is the Son to be born...!)

 

[Muffled]

I think clearly Paul had a lot of problems.

I believe he didn't have any that Jesus couldn't solve.

 

[Muffled]

That's true of most fundamentalist Protestant churches but not of Catholic, Orthodox, and most mainstream Protestant churches. Jesus' "Sermon On the Mount" is basically a call for the need to live out of a lifestyle based on "love one another...".

I don't believe anyone can live that lifestyle but Jesus can in me and by grace through faith He does.

 

[metis]

I don't believe anyone can live that lifestyle but Jesus can in me and by grace through faith He does.

Let me recommend that you read the book "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas Kempis, whereas his main drift is that we need to live as closely to the ideals that Jesus taught. If one doesn't even try to do as such, are they really Christian or are they just going through the motions of "religion"?

 

[Oeste]

Oh dear ... Jesus is not God... and God is Father.
So your premise is false.

Well, as explained in the OP, my premise for the sake of argument and this thread was that Jesus is not God, just like you said. I agree with you this premise is false, but for the sake of argument we are considering it true.

Unfortunately this leaves us with an unanswered OP.

Jesus is a human Being (though a sinless one) and is no different to any human Being in any respect of personage. Therefore he can be ‘friend’. However, the differential aspect considered here is that he presented himself as a TEACHER... and a teacher is, like a Patent, not a friend... SO, after passing them through the fire of his teachings, Jesus RAISES THEM TO HIS LEVEL ... the apostles are to become teachers, themselves... THEREFORE they are no longer SERVANTS (did you read the ‘No longer call you SERVANTS’) but are NOW called ‘FRIENDS’ because they are akin to him.... WE ARE NEVER AKIN TO GOD!!!

This makes no sense Soapy. Of course we (as Christians) are akin to God. Friendship is a Godly attribute, not a demonic one.
“Akin” simply means “related”, “close” or “near”. Exhibiting these Godly attributes brings us nearer to God. I think you’re confusing “akin” to “equivalence”. We are never equivalent to God, but we can be bought into kinship with Him.

Why don’t you ask me if I look things up in the scriptures... DOH!!!!

Why would I need to do that? This post is in Biblical Debates, located under Scriptural Debates...DOH!!!!

What I don’t do is present ‘OTHER VIEWS’ that are not part of scriptures - I look up things that compound the scriptural views and that are aligned with my belief.

That is evident in your posts. At worse, this process is called “Confirmation Bias”. At best, it’s simply “Proof-texting”.

Rather than simply looking things up that “align” with a preconceived belief, why not let scripture guide you…aligning your belief with what you read?

For Abraham to be considered a friend to God or God to consider Abraham as a friend does not indicate Abraham is on the level of Almighty God. It is linked with Jesus calling the Apostles the same in that Abraham and the Apostles are ‘trusted persons’. Abraham carries out a faithful act, an act so wonderful and noble that God fully trusted him in all things.

Red Herring.
No one on this thread has alleged “Abraham is on the level of Almighty God”.

What exactly is your version of the meaning of Friends? Is a friend not a trusted person?

Exactly Soapy! A friend is someone or something we place trust in. Since we place trust in God, God is our friend. It is an absurdity to claim He's not.
Those who do not place trust in God may find God not so friendly, but those who do have nothing to fear.

And in any case, where is Jesus said to be ‘Father’ to the Apostles .. nowhere? It says he was TEACHER, MASTER, RABBI...

I didn’t say Jesus is Father to the Apostles. I stated he is Father to eternity. For the verse, look at Isaiah 9:6. You were just discussing it a few posts ago.

When you were at school, we’re you ever “a friend to your teacher”? I’m going to answer for you and say, “No!”.

You would be answering incorrectly. I’ve been schooled by many a friend. What kind of life have you lived Soapy? Have you no friends that have instructed you in anything? Who have taught you nothing? Perhaps one that showed you how to whistle, another how to dance, another how to pitch a ball, fix a flat, or ride a bike? Any of these filled the role of TEACHER AND FRIEND.

And when you were a child, were your parents “your friend”? Again, I answer for you: “No!”.

It might be more conducive to debate if you do not monopolize both sides of our conversation.

But again you would be incorrect. I’ve played baseball, basketball, horse shoes, and checkers with my Dad. When I was even younger, my dad would make a face and run to tickle me. Then I would make a face, and run to tickle him. We did this just to hear the other laugh.

That didn’t mean I never got a spanking when I deserved it. It just means he was both a friend and parent. In turn, he was teaching me to be a friend and a son.

Why,... because it is an unsafe condition. A parent should NEVER be friend to their children.

Unsafe condition ???

Do you have some scriptural basis for this absurd notion? I never felt SAFER than when my Dad was playing with me.

It is a FALSE EMOTIVE mindset and usually from a feminine viewpoint.

That is too funny Soapy!

So being friendly with your kids is a “false emotive” and usually means a “feminine viewpoint”!!!

Wait…you ARE being funny here, right?

A parent tries to placate their child by claiming that the child is their friend.... wrong wrong wrong!!! The child should see the parent as just that: ‘Their PARENT’!!!

Wrong? My mother playing dolls with my sisters was wrong?? Are you trying to pigeon hole parenting into "discipline" and “instruction” only??

Your idea of a “parent” sounds more like boot camp than parenting Soapy

Should a child Have to consider his parent(s) as ‘trustable’??? Oh dear! That is an unwholesome situation for the child to have to be in!!!!

I have no idea why you think ‘TRUSTABLE’ parents are ‘UNWHOLESOME’, why a parent being friendly is a “false emotive” or indicative of a “feminine viewpoint”, why being friendly is an “unsafe condition”, why you bother to ask questions if you’re going to answer them for me, why you would only look up scriptures that agree with a preconceived belief, why Godly attributes don’t make us more akin to God, or why you believe “God is not our friend”!

You are either being facetious or simply doing your level best to troll and divert us from thread theme.

 

[Oeste]

Plus, what is so difficult when Jesus is not God?

You haven't been following along. We're up to our 32nd page, or around our 628th post of difficulty.

Should be easier to understand.

Except it isn't.

HockeyCowboy tried explaining it with an analogy that didn’t apply. Soapy tried explaining it by telling us “God is not our friend”. Others create rabbit holes (proof texts) they demand be answered as they attempt to divert from the OP. As one poster lamented to me: “It’s all very frustrating, isn’t it?”

Doesnt scripture tell us that God was working "through" His son?....

The OP discusses Romans 5:8. It is later developed and framed with 1 John 4:8, John 15: 13 and John 15:20. Are you claiming God showed greater love by dying "through" His son???

If you need some help, let me know, i'll show you some wonderful points in scripture.

Great! You can start with the OP. Then, if you want to get more in depth, step us through your answer to the quandary encountered in post 43. We look forward to your answers.

Have a wonderful day.

Yes, have a wonderful day!

 

[moorea944]

You haven't been following along. We're up to our 32nd page, or around our 628th post of difficulty.



Except it isn't.

HockeyCowboy tried explaining it with an analogy that didn’t apply. Soapy tried explaining it by telling us “God is not our friend”. Others create rabbit holes (proof texts) they demand be answered as they attempt to divert from the OP. As one poster lamented to me: “It’s all very frustrating, isn’t it?”



The OP discusses Romans 5:8. It is later developed and framed with 1 John 4:8, John 15: 13 and John 15:20. Are you claiming God showed greater love by dying "through" His son???



Great! You can start with the OP. Then, if you want to get more in depth, step us through your answer to the quandary encountered in post 43. We look forward to your answers.



Yes, have a wonderful day!

[The OP discusses Romans 5:8. It is later developed and framed with 1 John 4:8, John 15: 13 and John 15:20. Are you claiming God showed greater love by dying "through" His son???]

Not quite sure why your showing me these verses. I agree with you that God is love and He's a loving God. I agree with you on that. Now, the second part....

Do I think God showed greater love by dying "through" his son? First of all, that doesnt even make sense. God cant die. Do you think that God can die? I hope not.... I think the problem is that you still believe that Jesus is God. Not really sure why you "feel" that Jesus has to be his father.... or the same person. Scripture tells us that Jesus died, not God. Not really sure where your going with this..... Are you saying that God wasnt working through His son?

 

[Soapy]

Well, as explained in the OP, my premise for the sake of argument and this thread was that Jesus is not God, just like you said. I agree with you this premise is false, but for the sake of argument we are considering it true.

Unfortunately this leaves us with an unanswered OP.



This makes no sense Soapy. Of course we (as Christians) are akin to God. Friendship is a Godly attribute, not a demonic one.
“Akin” simply means “related”, “close” or “near”. Exhibiting these Godly attributes brings us nearer to God. I think you’re confusing “akin” to “equivalence”. We are never equivalent to God, but we can be bought into kinship with Him.



Why would I need to do that? This post is in Biblical Debates, located under Scriptural Debates...DOH!!!!



That is evident in your posts. At worse, this process is called “Confirmation Bias”. At best, it’s simply “Proof-texting”.

Rather than simply looking things up that “align” with a preconceived belief, why not let scripture guide you…aligning your belief with what you read?



Red Herring.
No one on this thread has alleged “Abraham is on the level of Almighty God”.



Exactly Soapy! A friend is someone or something we place trust in. Since we place trust in God, God is our friend. It is an absurdity to claim He's not.
Those who do not place trust in God may find God not so friendly, but those who do have nothing to fear.



I didn’t say Jesus is Father to the Apostles. I stated he is Father to eternity. For the verse, look at Isaiah 9:6. You were just discussing it a few posts ago.



You would be answering incorrectly. I’ve been schooled by many a friend. What kind of life have you lived Soapy? Have you no friends that have instructed you in anything? Who have taught you nothing? Perhaps one that showed you how to whistle, another how to dance, another how to pitch a ball, fix a flat, or ride a bike? Any of these filled the role of TEACHER AND FRIEND.



It might be more conducive to debate if you do not monopolize both sides of our conversation.

But again you would be incorrect. I’ve played baseball, basketball, horse shoes, and checkers with my Dad. When I was even younger, my dad would make a face and run to tickle me. Then I would make a face, and run to tickle him. We did this just to hear the other laugh.

That didn’t mean I never got a spanking when I deserved it. It just means he was both a friend and parent. In turn, he was teaching me to be a friend and a son.



Unsafe condition ???

Do you have some scriptural basis for this absurd notion? I never felt SAFER than when my Dad was playing with me.



That is too funny Soapy!

So being friendly with your kids is a “false emotive” and usually means a “feminine viewpoint”!!!

Wait…you ARE being funny here, right?


Wrong? My mother playing dolls with my sisters was wrong?? Are you trying to pigeon hole parenting into "discipline" and “instruction” only??

Your idea of a “parent” sounds more like boot camp than parenting Soapy



I have no idea why you think ‘TRUSTABLE’ parents are ‘UNWHOLESOME’, why a parent being friendly is a “false emotive” or indicative of a “feminine viewpoint”, why being friendly is an “unsafe condition”, why you bother to ask questions if you’re going to answer them for me, why you would only look up scriptures that agree with a preconceived belief, why Godly attributes don’t make us more akin to God, or why you believe “God is not our friend”!

You are either being facetious or simply doing your level best to troll and divert us from thread theme.

Oeste, I think you fail to read Jesus’ words:

• ‘I no longer call you servants. I now call you FRIENDS’

You don’t see that while Jesus was TEACHING the Disciples he called them Servants... but then when he stopped TEACHING the disciples (now they are APOSTLES) he called them FRIENDS???

And please do not use that awful trinitarian twisted tripe saying analogically ‘if you say Jesus isn’t good then you are saying Jesus is bad... but if he is good then he must be God because he says only God is Good!!’

I refer to that tripe from trinity because that is what you are saying to me about ‘friend’. We are NOT FRIEND to God because we are his children (in the flesh). We must put our trust in him; in God, just as any offspring puts their trust in their parent... this applies even down to the majority o base animals. Abraham TRUSTED GOD and did what God told him to do even though he had no idea where it was to lead him. Scriptures tells us that Abraham was faithful in all things even down to preparing to sacrifice his ‘only Son’ on command from YHWH God...now THAT IS TRUST... and also Abraham was prepared and did travel to a new land of which he knew nothing, at the behest of YHWH GOD... now that, in view of the situation he was in, is PURE TRUST... hence scriptures paints him as a picture of trust to his God... so much so that he was called ‘a friend of God’.

Now notice that it is not Abraham who was FRIEND to God but rather ‘God was friend to Abraham’ (do not confuse, ‘friend OF God’ with Friends TO God’!!!)

As Father, God TRUSTED Abraham... that is unique... (obviously Jesus, David, and Solomon were later exceptions) Abraham had no precedences to look back on and so his accomplishments are fore-runners of trustfulness in an unseen Teacher, Master, Rabbi, God!!!

Oeste, do you consider president Trump to be your friend? Would you ever? Why not? And yet trump is only a human... Sp where do you get off claiming that you are friend to Jesus... or even worse, ‘Friend to God’? Or even that Jesus should consider you as ‘His friend’... let alone for YHWH GOD to consider you as ‘His Friend’...???

What an amazingly crass presumption!

Jesus is your MASTER...

YHWH (Spiritual Father) is your GOD...

Your master chooses you if he trusts you so deeply!

And which one of us does [a] GOD TRUST SO DEEPLY that he chooses such a one to be HIS FRIEND?

 

[Oeste]

The OP discusses Romans 5:8. It is later developed and framed with 1 John 4:8, John 15: 13 and John 15:20. Are you claiming God showed greater love by dying "through" His son???

Not quite sure why your showing me these verses.

These verses are all part and parcel of the OP.

I agree with you that God is love and He's a loving God. I agree with you on that.

Great, but that’s not the issue. One of the main issue here is How does God show greater love by asking someone else to die? In other words, who shows greater love…the one dying for his friends or the one who agreed or asked you to die?

Your response, after I recited the above verses was to ask:

Doesnt scripture tell us that God was working "through" His son?

Of course your response to the cited verses raises more questions than answers, which is why I ask again:

Are you claiming God showed greater love by dying "through" His son???​

Now, the second part....

Do I think God showed greater love by dying "through" his son? First of all, that doesnt even make sense.

I agree, but that was your response for the cited verses!

God cant die. Do you think that God can die?

Many of the “Jesus ain’t God” posters here readily admit to a one worship, “many God” theology (Monolatry/Henotheism) whereas I hold to only one, living, eternal God. The criteria seems to be if something is "called" a God then it must be an actual God. This allows sticks and stones, idols, sun, moon, and even men to become Gods even though scripture tells us all such so-called Gods are repeatedly condemned (judged) by God even if they themselves are children of God. (Psalm 82:6; 1 Cor 8:5)

I don't want to veer too much off thread theme but when you have a henotheistic theology you're likely to find Gods dying all over the place. In other words, God never dies (cease to exist) when Jesus is God but you're much more likely to have one dying from time to time when you have a Christology that claims he's not.

I hope not.... I think the problem is that you still believe that Jesus is God.

Of course I believe Jesus is God, but that's not the problem. As I've illustrated, time and time again, the problem arises when I believe he isn't.

If you read the OP I’ve asked my fellow “Jesus is God” (Trinitarians, Oneness) to temporarily abandon the “Jesus is God” argument for a “Jesus ain’t God” one. In other words, to walk a mile in the others shoes.

The problem is once we do that we can no longer answer simple questions like that posited in the OP. We can no longer reconcile Romans 5:8 with 1 John 4:8 , John 15:13 and/or John 15:20. We can no longer exegete (expound/interpret) these texts.

But instead of assistance the “Jesus ain’t God” response has been to:

a. Be confounded by the question (where/what does the question mean)

b. Discuss something totally unrelated to the question (point to an unrelated verse) or

c. Pretend the question isn’t there (what is/was the question )

After that, they simply re-declare that “Jesus ain’t God” and call it a day.​

That’s a big problem (and so far, 32 pages of frustration) but it doesn’t make the problem go away. The quandary is still sitting there like an elephant or gorilla in the room.


​

Not really sure why you "feel" that Jesus has to be his father.... or the same person.

I've never felt, thought, or believed Jesus to be his father...or the same person.

Not really sure where your going with this.....

If you don’t hold the New Testament as authoritative then it’s doubtful you would. Instead you’ll tend to wonder what the fuss is all about.

But that’s okay…I believe those who hold the NT authoritatively understand the quandary perfectly.

Are you saying that God wasnt working through His son?

I'm saying your response doesn't answer the OP.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe he didn't have any that Jesus couldn't solve.

I don't think dead people can solve any problems. As for God, I think most often he wants us to work through our problems. That's why he gives them to us in the first place.

But at any rate, if Paul is the unstable person that I think he is, I certainly would not be looking to him for spiritual advice.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's true of most fundamentalist Protestant churches but not of Catholic, Orthodox, and most mainstream Protestant churches. Jesus' "Sermon On the Mount" is basically a call for the need to live out of a lifestyle based on "love one another...".

I will agree with you that Jesus' teachings were different from that of Paul. But Christianity mostly is Pauline.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

[He taught salvation by faith alone,]
Totally incorrect! First of all, faith IS a big part of this and obedience too. Faith and obedience go hand and hand together. Paul also taught alot of other things too. What else saves us? Paul tells us that faith, endurance, truth, baptism, etc, etc. But faith is part of it.

Look at the book of Romans, Paul tells the Jews that you dont need that Law anymore, it was never meant to save!!! It was to bring us to Christ. We are all understand sin, none of us are any good! We all fall short of God's Glory! Salvation is now by faith. Jews hated to hear that, they thought they were all ready saved and good to go with their Heavenly Father because they were Jews and that they had the "Law". Paul says no!!

[despite the fact that this message doesn't exist in the Torah.]
The message of faith isnt in the Torah? You serious?!?.... Of course it is!! Just look at Abraham.... Read Hebrews 11 (the faith chapter), plus Paul also says in Romans, and he was trying to make the Jews understand this, was Abraham accounted worthly and justified before God before or after curcumcision?.....

[What is taught from Genesis to Chronicles (the last book in Jewish Bibles) is that we are to obey, obey, obey. Paul completely lost touch with this.]
Again, incorrect. I can tell that you dont read the NT, if you did, you would know what is in Paul's letters and what is in it.

Are you Catholic?

No, faith alone does not exist in the Torah. The Torah is obedience, obedience, obedience. As it is throughout the Tanakh. And when faith is discussed, it is always discussed in relationship to obedience.

Yes, Paul lost touch with the message of th Tanakh. He wrote, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Romans 3:28 That is antithetical to what the Torah teaches. And Paul knew this when he wrote it. He was writing it to discourage his gentile followers from obeying the Jewish covenant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think your argument is invalid.

If you are arguing from the point of view of Judaism then everything you just said is prejudiced by your disbelief of the Christian view point.

You cannot Argue that a Christian is wrong or has been misled if you don’t first believe in what the Christian believes. ... You cannot believe or not believe in anything Christian if you don’t believe there is such a thing as Christian.

Oh I believe Christians exist. I think most of them are very good people. I just think they have a lot of basic theological errors, the most obvious are that they think Gd is a man, they think Jesus is the messiah, and they think (most of them) that we are saved by belief in Jesus Christ.

I do not have to be a Christian to know how to compare Christian teachings with the teachings of the Tanakh, and to see that there is a big contradiction. I do not have to be a Christian to know that the Torah is the reed by which all other ideas are measured to see whether they are of God or not, and that the Christian scriptures are found woefully wanting.

Indeed, I acknowledge a little bias on my part, and I insist that you acknowledge the same sort of bias on your part. You simply start with the opposite assertion -- that the NT is the reed for measuring. When there is a conflict between NT and Tanakh, its "obvious" that its because God has done away with the Torah.

We are told that Paul was sent to the gentiles because he accepted that the Jews had rejected Jesus and Jesus had rejected them in turn. Paul argues with Peter about this very fact so much so that the two parted company... Peter was shown by God that it is he who was wrong... that ALL FOOD (people) cleansed by God was favourable to eat (to be accepted into the faith of his Son, Jesus Christ).

This is not what paul teaches at all. If you read romans chapter 11, you will find Paul teaching that the Jews are still God's covenant people -- "For the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable." He also says regarding unbelieving Jews that "All Israel shall be saved," and that "As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election (salvation) they are beloved for the sake of the patriarchs." Sounds to me like Paul is very pro=Jewish, even those of us who reject Jesus. He would prefer for us to believe, but he doesn't think God has cast us aside.

As a start to you understanding the above, can you understand that God had already prophesied that the Saviour would be ‘rejected by his own’?

You have to understand that I do not accept your gospels, or any part of your NT as authoritative. The Torah is the reed by which your NT is measured and found wanting.

Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: “Whoever believes will not be in haste.” ‘ ”
Jesus is that cornerstone laid by God... and you know that scriptures further speaks of the rejection of the cornerstone.

Look, I don't have all the answers about every scripture. But if I were to identify a cornerstone of the faith, it would be the Torah.

One question... What is the state of the Jewish view of the messiah today - Do you believe the messiah is still yet to come (first coming?) - and what are the signs you are looking out for towards that revelation??

Yes, we still look to the messiah. He will, among other things, bring all the Jews back to the land of Israel. He will rule from Jerusalem. And he will usher in an era of world peace.

Notice that Jesus did none of these things. The messiah, when he comes, either fulfills all the prophecies, or he is a failure.

 

[metis]

I will agree with you that Jesus' teachings were different from that of Paul. But Christianity mostly is Pauline.

IMO, yes and no.

I do believe that Paul went well beyond that which Jesus directly taught, probably for three main reasons:

1) Jesus taught in parables over just a three year period that probably lacked details, whereas Paul taught over a much longer stretch of time.

2) Because of the relative vagueness with Jesus' teachings, Paul undoubtedly felt the need of interpreting what Jesus had said, especially dealing with Jesus' and his take on the Law itself. Theirs was gonna be a very difficult sell, to say the least, thus needing some relatively fancy "theological gymnastics", as I call it.

3) Paul was dealing a lot with applications of Jesus' teachings, and as I'm certain you're aware because of your background in Judaism that applications can be real bugger to justify and explain and then sell.

Thus, I don't believe that Paul negated anything that Jesus taught, but I do believe he went well beyond it.

 

[moorea944]

Are you Catholic?

No, faith alone does not exist in the Torah. The Torah is obedience, obedience, obedience. As it is throughout the Tanakh. And when faith is discussed, it is always discussed in relationship to obedience.

Yes, Paul lost touch with the message of th Tanakh. He wrote, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Romans 3:28 That is antithetical to what the Torah teaches. And Paul knew this when he wrote it. He was writing it to discourage his gentile followers from obeying the Jewish covenant.

Doesnt matter what the Tanakh teaches now, everything has changed in Christ. God makes that clear. And that's the message that Paul was trying to point out to the Jews.

 

[Soapy]

Oh I believe Christians exist. I think most of them are very good people. I just think they have a lot of basic theological errors, the most obvious are that they think Gd is a man, they think Jesus is the messiah, and they think (most of them) that we are saved by belief in Jesus Christ.

I do not know any Christian who thinks God is a man ... that what you say is just maliciousness!
It is true that TRINITARIAN CHRISTIANS wrongfully believe that Jesus, who is a man, is ALSO GOD... Well, in that I agree they are woefully wrong - but that belief DOES NOT SAY that ‘God is a man’...

Could I beg you a favour and assign the appropriate SECT of Christianity that you refer to in your expositions... You must not taint ALL WHO ARE CALLED CHRISTIAN with the same belief :

• A Christian is one who professes to believe in and follows the ways of Christ Jesus

You can see from that definition that there will be a wide variety of persons (or groups / sects) who are umbrellaed under that belief title. So please research whom you are accusing and differentiate them as appropriate :

it is offensive, for instance, to say that I believe that God is a man when I absolutely do not make even an inkling of such a claim!!!

((Oh, incidentally, I do not belong to any group of Christian that is traditionally named even though I believe in ways of Christ Jesus. If you need to refer to what I believe then just class me as ‘Christian True Scriptures’. It’s not a group but you gotta call me something, yes?))

I do not have to be a Christian to know how to compare Christian teachings with the teachings of the Tanakh, and to see that there is a big contradiction. I do not have to be a Christian to know that the Torah is the reed by which all other ideas are measured to see whether they are of God or not, and that the Christian scriptures are found woefully wanting.

It is unfortunate that you choose this belief because it is exactly what Jesus Christ came and overthrew in that the Jews of the Tanakh/Torah were abusing the very laws of MOSES... note carefully::: MOSES’ Laws....

Moses saw that the Israelites were overwhelmed by God’s laws - they found them stiffling due to their inherent sinful nature. So they begged Moses for a lightening of the laws... and Moses took their complaint to God... and God allowed Moses to create such retrievals. An instance of this was Divorce...

But even this reprieval was abused. Jesus taught that, for instance, ‘the Sabbath was made for man’. This means that the Sabbath was to allow the Israelites to rest... and to worship God. But the Jews insisted on ABSOLUTE WORKLESSNESS - not even to bake bread, heal a sock person, or anything of a professional attitude. HOWEVER, as Jesus pointed out, if their donkey fell into a well then they would takes steps to recover it... viz-a-viz they would WORK to remove it... and ‘god forbid’ if their house caught on fire!!!!!! Would they hesitate to WORK at putting the fire out... Of course not... So Jesus called them HYPOCRITES because they accused him of breaking the Sabbath by ‘DOING GOOD’ by healing a man (I.e. carrying out DOCTOR services) and also for MAKING BREAD (Being a Baker)!!! Jesus also taught them that their Spiritual Father, YHWH GOD, was working even on the Sabbath - and so, as long as the work was Spiritually profitable then all was ok...

So, I ask you if you think what this ‘prophet’ you don’t believe in was correct? Is it a sin to do good on the Sabbath - is not doing good a GODLY ACT?

Indeed, I acknowledge a little bias on my part, and I insist that you acknowledge the same sort of bias on your part. You simply start with the opposite assertion -- that the NT is the reed for measuring. When there is a conflict between NT and Tanakh, its "obvious" that its because God has done away with the Torah.

NO WAY should quarters be given to a deprecated belief... the aspect you plant yourself on ((the Ten Commandments are still valid))

I have always declared that no true Christian should ever consider ‘walking in the shoes of a fallacious belief just to see what it’s like!’ I would not advocate that a police officer walks in the ways of a criminal in order to understand the ways of a criminal to sympathise with them. It is absolutely not required... It is intuitive what is wrong even if the person is down on his wealth or born into crime or forced into it... we are furnished with strength to resist them easy way out!’. So also, I do not need to ‘understand Judaism’ to know where it fails in its teachings. I put it to you that, as has been said, ‘Let Scriptures attest of itself!’.

And since the Old Testament ends way over 2,000 years ago Judaism has nothing to seat itself upon as far as any future is concerned.

Still waiting fir the messiah??? What are the signs of the times... let the Torah/Tanakh speak to you... and does it???

This is not what paul teaches at all. If you read romans chapter 11, you will find Paul teaching that the Jews are still God's covenant people -- "For the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable." He also says regarding unbelieving Jews that "All Israel shall be saved," and that "As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election (salvation) they are beloved for the sake of the patriarchs." Sounds to me like Paul is very pro=Jewish, even those of us who reject Jesus. He would prefer for us to believe, but he doesn't think God has cast us aside.

Paul was ‘re-assigned’ by Jesus to preach the way to God. His dispute with Peter showed that there was division between whom should be taught about the risen Christ. I’m not sure of the outcome but Acts 17:24 - 18:23 says:

• "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.... ... Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles..... ...One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city. .... While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

And elsewhere:

• “All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name.” (Psalms 86:9)

As you can see, Paul preached to both Jews and gentiles after he saw that the Jews were not receiving the word of God by the spirit of Jesus. He did not reject the Jews entirely because if it were so he would have been in denial and violation of psalm 86:9.

You also see that Paul preached a risen Christ and put it to the Jews that salvation was through this Christ, this messiah, this MAN WHOM GOD RAISED FROM THE DEATH AS PROOF!!

So, and however, many Jews eventually tried rejecting HIM (Paul)... but Jesus (‘the Lord’) told him to keep preaching ... if the Lord had found that Paul was wrong then he could never have advocated that Paul should maintain his preaching....!!

You have to understand that I do not accept your gospels, or any part of your NT as authoritative. The Torah is the reed by which your NT is measured and found wanting.

The Torah WAS the yardstick by which the nations were judged ... up until the SAVIOUR was sent with a new Covenant... the everlasting covenant!!!

There can be only one covenant concerning any one matter. A new covenant overturns all and any previous covenant on the same matter just as a new WILL supersedes all previous WILLS concerning the same matter!

Look, I don't have all the answers about every scripture. But if I were to identify a cornerstone of the faith, it would be the Torah.

COWARD!!! (Smile!!) Thats a cheap politicians way out - it means you see the veracity of what was said but you cannot BE SEEN to agree with it as it is counter to your parties manifesto... Being pious in admitting by saying you don’t have the answers is purely deflection because if you can’t understand a simple verse or verses then how are you so sure it is wrong?

Yes, we still look to the messiah. He will, among other things, bring all the Jews back to the land of Israel. He will rule from Jerusalem. And he will usher in an era of world peace.

Notice that Jesus did none of these things. The messiah, when he comes, either fulfills all the prophecies, or he is a failure.

Jesus brought REDEMPTION from the sin of Adam, a redemption from DEATH OF ALL MANKIND NO MATTER HOW ‘godly’ they were because God demanded the blood of a sinless man in order to remove it, If you do not believe that the sin of Adam has been removed by the death of an innocent pure and holy man and raised again by Almighty God: YHWH, then you are in serious error!!!

 

[Soapy]

IMO, yes and no.

I do believe that Paul went well beyond that which Jesus directly taught, probably for three main reasons:

1) Jesus taught in parables over just a three year period that probably lacked details, whereas Paul taught over a much longer stretch of time.

2) Because of the relative vagueness with Jesus' teachings, Paul undoubtedly felt the need of interpreting what Jesus had said, especially dealing with Jesus' and his take on the Law itself. Theirs was gonna be a very difficult sell, to say the least, thus needing some relatively fancy "theological gymnastics", as I call it.

3) Paul was dealing a lot with applications of Jesus' teachings, and as I'm certain you're aware because of your background in Judaism that applications can be real bugger to justify and explain and then sell.
.....

Metis, you are quite right about this:

Thus, I don't believe that Paul negated anything that Jesus taught, but I do believe he went well beyond it.

You know that Jesus told the disciples that it would occur:

• ‘These things you see me do, they YOU TOO will do - Yeah, AND GREATER THAN THESE things will you do!’

Jesus’ time during his life was short and there was no time to express in detail all that he was taught by YHWH to say and do. Jesus’ saying, above, exactly prophesies what you say Paul did: express in greater detail the spiritual teachings of Jesus. Remember that Jesus, himself, appointed Paul to carry out these works and upheld him:

• ‘Paul, keep preaching ... do not be afraid...!’

A great teacher does not himself teach ALL THINGS but only the greater aspects. The learner is expected to FILL IN the smaller elements using the teachings given by the greater ... think of YHWH... YHWH only gave us the Ten Commandments. These are broad brush - not in-depth... it is left to the priests and elders, judges and other holy men, to express the fullness.

 

[Soapy]

For the poster who suggested that Jesus was not YHWH’s son... please would you understand this:

‘Son of God’ does not mean that YHWH procreated an offspring in the flesh. It means that of a human Being who CARRIES OUT the works of YHWH (God) EXACTLY as YHWH showed him and in totality of what YHWH instructs him to do.
Jesus stayed this to the Jews - that he was DOING THE WORKS OF HIS FATHER and this qualified him as ‘Son of God’.
But not only that but we also see that Adam was called ‘Son of God’ because up until he sinned he had been doing all and everything God had commanded him to do.
And, of course, we also read in the scriptures where it says, ‘Those who follow the Spirit [of the Father] are SONS OF GOD [THE FATHER]’
And we know also that the Holy Angels of Heaven are ‘SONS OF GOD’... why? Bevause holy angels do ONLY AND ALL THAT GOD COMMANDS THEM TO DO.​

So, fellow posters, please understand that ‘Son of God’ (in humanity) does not in any way imply a ‘Procreated offspring’ from the Spirit GOD.

A Spirit does not PROCREATE...

A Spirit only CREATES...

Trinitarians completely dismiss this reality by claiming that Jesus was PROCREATED by God (which makes Jesus a Create Being... which JW’s claim makes Jesus an Angel!! Oh dear!!!)
But then Trinitarians, realising the grave error of their fallacy, claim that Jesus was never created but was ETERNALLY BORN - which means ‘Never Born’... or evening worse, ‘Being Eternally Created’ - both of which they claim means he was ETERNAL like God... which makes him ‘Gods also..

Does any of that make sense??

No!!! Not at all - not in any way at all...!!

No, Jesus was a human Being made in the manner of Adam but not sinning!

In not sinning (and the only human Being not to sin) Jesus RETAINS HIS SONSHIP and is therefore classed as ‘The Only Son of God’... only Jesus completely and continuously ‘DID AND DOES THE WORKS OF HIS FATHER’.