The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Rick B]

By Biblical discernment I think you mean your own amazing constructions.

If Jesus was/is God then he committed every act of killing, drowning, torturing, stoning, envy and jealousy as recorded.

But even so, the Jesus of the New Testament was an insurrectionist and rebel, a supporter of slavery, a follower of the whip and sword, and the Jesus that will return will return with sharp double edged sword flicking from mouth.

Imagine that, the divine words of God as written by his ordained prophets and apostles, advocating and supporting slavery.

Is the above your God? As written about in the bible?

You clearly have a differing picture of Jesus to the amazing, loving, understanding man that I have studied.

I gave you Scripture. You give me your vitriolic opinions. I choose Scripture.

 

[Rick B]

Rev 6--The first ride of the white horse ( righteous war) in revelation. There are only 2 rides, the war in heaven, and Har-mageddon--The first rides time period is before the 2nd ride. Har- mageddon has not occurred yet, making the first ride--the war in heaven--Michael battled satan and his angels and defeated them. Cast them to the earth--Satan came as a devouring lion, angry, knowing his time is short--ww1--hearts filled with the spirit of antichrist, slaughtering one another on the orders of wicked men. Millions dead our human brothers. The other 3 riders rode as well--After ww1--millions upon millions died all over the earth from the filth of the slaughter, diseases, starvation, etc--they still ride. The --FACT-- at Rev 6--He receives his crown--only Jesus is getting the crown. Michael got the crown--it proves Michael is Jesus.
And the fact it is Michael( Jesus) speaking at Proverbs 8--Gods master worker-- All other things created through) Michael--Jesus)--he clearly shows there how painstaking it was for God to create him directly. The firstborn of all creation( Coll 1:15) this is truth.
God did not come to the earth as a mortal, Michael did. Dan 12:1)

I' sorry I should have included a definition of exegesis.

Exegesis means “exposition or explanation.” Biblical exegesis involves the examination of a particular text of scripture in order to properly interpret it. Exegesis is a part of the process of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. A person who practices exegesis is called an exegete.

Good biblical exegesis is actually commanded in scripture. “Study [be diligent] to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). According to this verse, we must handle the Word of God properly, through diligent study. If we don’t, we have reason to be ashamed.

There are some basic principles of good exegesis which serious students of the Bible will follow:

1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.

Having now been shown the proper way of determining the meaning of, maybe, 8 verses containing the name of Michael the archangel, would you like to try again?

 

[oldbadger]

I gave you Scripture. You give me your vitriolic opinions. I choose Scripture.

Scripture?

Look, Jesus was not God. Matthew shows quite clearly that God's Temple was not Jesus's Temple. Jesus never once went into his-Temple.

Here, let me show you an example:-
Matthew {21:12} And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves........

You see? Jesus didn't go into his temple, but God's temple.

--------------------------------------------

And in the Old Testament God sometimes calls Himself 'I am'..... not 'we are'.

The idea that Jesus is God is most strange.
------------------------------------------

Did you want some scripture to show that your idea of Jesus supports slavery? How dreadful, but here goes:-

Colossians 4:1 "You masters, treat your slaves in a righteous and fair way, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear (Ephesians 6:5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything (Colossians 3:22)

There you are, some scripture.....

 

[Rick B]

Scripture?

Look, Jesus was not God. Matthew shows quite clearly that God's Temple was not Jesus's Temple. Jesus never once went into his-Temple.

Here, let me show you an example:-
Matthew {21:12} And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves........

You see? Jesus didn't go into his temple, but God's temple.

--------------------------------------------

And in the Old Testament God sometimes calls Himself 'I am'..... not 'we are'.

The idea that Jesus is God is most strange.
------------------------------------------

Did you want some scripture to show that your idea of Jesus supports slavery? How dreadful, but here goes:-

Colossians 4:1 "You masters, treat your slaves in a righteous and fair way, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear (Ephesians 6:5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything (Colossians 3:22)

There you are, some scripture.....

Sir, you are demonstrating a very minimal and deficient knowledge of Biblical truth.

As far as slavery goes, when addressing the issue in view of the historical account of slavery within the Hebrew nation, I"ll mention four things:

Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies; they were more like servants or bondservants.

The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but just the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts.

Israelites could sell themselves as slaves/bondservants to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing, and be set free after six years. Foreigners could sell themselves as slaves/bondservants as well.

The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ.

 

[oldbadger]

Sir, you are demonstrating a very minimal and deficient knowledge of Biblical truth.

As far as slavery goes, when addressing the issue in view of the historical account of slavery within the Hebrew nation, I"ll mention four things:

Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies; they were more like servants or bondservants.

The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but just the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts.

Israelites could sell themselves as slaves/bondservants to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing, and be set free after six years. Foreigners could sell themselves as slaves/bondservants as well.

The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ.

You read the verses which require slaves to obey theiur masters. That was the scripture you asked for.

More Scripture, where Jesus shows that he is NOT God:-

Mat {6:30} Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Mat {3:9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Mat {5:8} Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Jesus uses the 3rd person, not the first. These examples are found EVERYWHERE in the Gospels.

And all the followers were titled 'children of God'. Here, let me show you....
{5:9} Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

And so everey follower was either a Son or Daughter of God. It's true that ardent evangelists would feel the need to add to, edit, enlarge upon, exaggerate and even fib within the writings, but these 'page by page' references to Jesus referring to God rather than self offer ample evidence that 'JESUS IS NOT GOD'.

If yuou need more scripture then ask for it, and I will do my best to instruct.........

 

[Rick B]

You read the verses which require slaves to obey theiur masters. That was the scripture you asked for.

More Scripture, where Jesus shows that he is NOT God:-

Mat {6:30} Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Mat {3:9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Mat {5:8} Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Jesus uses the 3rd person, not the first. These examples are found EVERYWHERE in the Gospels.

And all the followers were titled 'children of God'. Here, let me show you....
{5:9} Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

And so everey follower was either a Son or Daughter of God. It's true that ardent evangelists would feel the need to add to, edit, enlarge upon, exaggerate and even fib within the writings, but these 'page by page' references to Jesus referring to God rather than self offer ample evidence that 'JESUS IS NOT GOD'.

If yuou need more scripture then ask for it, and I will do my best to instruct.........

Exactly where in these verses, that you provided, "where Jesus shows that he is NOT God"?

 

[Oeste]

More Scripture, where Jesus shows that he is NOT God:-

Mat {6:30} Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Mat {3:9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Mat {5:8} Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Jesus uses the 3rd person, not the first. These examples are found EVERYWHERE in the Gospels.

And all the followers were titled 'children of God'. Here, let me show you....
{5:9} Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

Proof texting is a rather popular way to get the bible to support particular doctrines, especially on this forum. One person quotes a verse that says this, and another quotes a verse that appears to say that, and we go our separate ways fully confident we made our stated case. However, if our intent is to resolve or layer each biblical verse, one upon the other, then I think proper exegesis using textual criticism is our best option.

Quite simply, I haven't seen any other way to reconcile Jesus' claim of deity with scripture outside of the Trinity.

Sebellianism, Arianism, Adoptionism, Tritheism...all of them fall flat on their face for a number of reasons, which likely explains the relative dearth of non-Trinitarian scholars. Instead we are treated to vast, hitherto unknown and undetectable conspiracy theories, a curt and nod that our canon is unreliable, and generally some mythical historical point at which the body of Christ (Christian church) was devoured by Satan (until so-and-so restored it a hundred years ago) that becomes part and parcel of non-Trinitarian dogma.

 

[oldbadger]

Proof texting is a rather popular way to get the bible to support particular doctrines, especially on this forum.

Hi...... especially in all the World!
I have noticed that some Christians will often quote a sentence, verse or paragraph from the bible to justify many different self-righteous judgeents, and so it seems pertinent to use the single verse formula in return.
But clearly you would not do that.

One person quotes a verse that says this, and another quotes a verse that appears to say that, and we go our separate ways fully confident we made our stated case.

We cannot do much more.
Where a person declares:- 'This is my truth'... or.... 'This is my Faith' then almost all members here would acknowledge that and respect it.
Where a person declares 'This is the only truth' ....or.... 'this is the only faith' then they're likely to get challenged.

However, if our intent is to resolve or layer each biblical verse, one upon the other, then I think proper exegesis using textual criticism is our best option.

OK........ go for it...

 

[oldbadger]

However, if our intent is to resolve or layer each biblical verse, one upon the other, then I think proper exegesis using textual criticism is our best option.

Quite simply, I haven't seen any other way to reconcile Jesus' claim of deity with scripture outside of the Trinity.

There is a problem with resolution via textual criticism or analysis.
The first problem is that there is no record about what Jesus, his followers or others actually said, in their own language.
Apart from a very few and vague references to single words and their translations, via Hebrew, Greek or Latin we have little to work with that is original.

The bible does not even refer to the real names of most of the disciples, or even 'Jesus'.

And so for that reason we can only work on the balances of probability and possibility. Bearing all this in mind it is definitely a tempting challenge to reply to a thread that claims 'The Bible declares that Jesus is God'.

We know that ernest Christians edited, added to, manipulated and even invented insertions into the Gospels, whole letters and even historical works outside of the bible. That just does not help the thread's claim.

 

[Rick B]

There is a problem with resolution via textual criticism or analysis.
The first problem is that there is no record about what Jesus, his followers or others actually said, in their own language.
Apart from a very few and vague references to single words and their translations, via Hebrew, Greek or Latin we have little to work with that is original.

The bible does not even refer to the real names of most of the disciples, or even 'Jesus'.

And so for that reason we can only work on the balances of probability and possibility. Bearing all this in mind it is definitely a tempting challenge to reply to a thread that claims 'The Bible declares that Jesus is God'.

We know that ernest Christians edited, added to, manipulated and even invented insertions into the Gospels, whole letters and even historical works outside of the bible. That just does not help the thread's claim.

Isn't it ironic that you confidently use Scripture to try to prove your point when you have absolutely no confidence in its reliability.

 

[oldbadger]

Isn't it ironic that you confidently use Scripture to try to prove your point when you have absolutely no confidence in its reliability.

That post was to Oeste, and if Oeste responds then I would try to respond within a similare framework of communication to Oeste.

In your posts to me it looked (at first) as if you accept every word of 'scripture' as you describe it. You complained that I did not quote 'scripture'...... so I quoted scripture, and you showed little confidence in my chosen verses, preferring to focus upon your own.

And so...... do you accept that every single verse written in the New Testament is exactly correct and the divine words of God as passed through his Ordained prophets, apostles and self? It's a 'Yes or a No, I'm thinking?

According to how you respond I will be able to answer your suggestion that my posts are ironic.

 

[Rick B]

That post was to Oeste, and if Oeste responds then I would try to respond within a similare framework of communication to Oeste.

In your posts to me it looked (at first) as if you accept every word of 'scripture' as you describe it. You complained that I did not quote 'scripture'...... so I quoted scripture, and you showed little confidence in my chosen verses, preferring to focus upon your own.

And so...... do you accept that every single verse written in the New Testament is exactly correct and the divine words of God as passed through his Ordained prophets, apostles and self? It's a 'Yes or a No, I'm thinking?

According to how you respond I will be able to answer your suggestion that my posts are ironic.

This is a public thread not a private debate. I can respond to whomsoever I wish.

The Scriptures that you presented as proof of your assertion "where Jesus shows that he is NOT God" was fallacious. None supported your allegation, to which you declined to respond to my challenge in post 1029 to demonstrate your assertion. Also, my response following your post 1028 was to challenge your assertions in post 1029, not focusing on my own.

As to your final question your "thinking" the answer is a simple "yes or no" is superficial considering the depth of the subject. The Scriptures as originally written are without error.

1. The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.1 The light of nature and the works of creation and providence so clearly demonstrate the goodness, wisdom, and power of God that people are left without excuse; however, these demonstrations are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and his will that is necessary for salvation.2 Therefore, the Lord was pleased at different times and in various ways to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church.3 To preserve and propagate the truth better and to establish and comfort the church with greater certainty against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world, the Lord put this revelation completely in writing. Therefore, the Holy Scriptures are absolutely necessary, because God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people have now ceased.4
12 Timothy 3:15–17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20. 2Romans 1:19–21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalm 19:1–3. 3Hebrews 1:1. 4Proverbs 22:19–21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.

4. The authority of the Holy Scriptures obligates belief in them. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church but on God the author alone, who is truth itself. Therefore, the Scriptures are to be received because they are the Word of God.7
72 Peter 1:19–21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9.

5. The testimony of the church of God may stir and persuade us to adopt a high and reverent respect for the Holy Scriptures. Moreover, the heavenliness of the contents, the power of the system of truth, the majesty of the style, the harmony of all the parts, the central focus on giving all glory to God, the full revelation of the only way of salvation, and many other incomparable qualities and complete perfections, all provide abundant evidence that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Even so, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures comes from the internal work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.8
8John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10–12; 1 John 2:20, 27.

6. The whole counsel of God concerning everything essential for his own glory and man’s salvation, faith, and life is either explicitly stated or by necessary inference contained in the Holy Scriptures. Nothing is ever to be added to the Scriptures, either by new revelation of the Spirit or by human traditions.9
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the inward illumination of the Spirit of God is necessary for a saving understanding of what is revealed in the Word.10 We recognize that some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church are common to human actions and organizations and are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian wisdom, following the general rules of the Word, which must always be observed.11
92 Timothy 3:15–17; Galatians 1:8,9. 10John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9–12. 111 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26, 40.
Taken from the 1689 LBCF

If the authentic, untainted Word of God is to be translated from the original Hebrew and Greek into our own language, we need to have an authentic original. How can we know that we have an authentic original today, thousands of years after the Bible was written?

The Bible itself gives us the answer. The same God who calls upon His people to obey the Bible alone in every area of life and ministry has also made a vital promise concerning His Word: He will preserve it and keep it pure in all ages. We have this promise from Christ Himself, who declared that until heaven and earth shall pass away, not a single letter nor even the smallest stroke of a single letter of the Scriptures shall be taken away (Matthew 5:18). Jesus also said that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). We have God's promise that "the Word of the Lord endures forever" (Isaiah 40:8).

Although we do not have the original manuscripts, it is clear that God has providentially preserved His Word in the original languages. There is more manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments than for any other book, ancient or modern. For example, there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the books of the Greek New Testament (over 5800 now RB) some of them from as early as 50 years after the time of the apostles (a new discovery brings the date back to 50-100 C.E. RB). By comparison, there are only seven available manuscripts of the writings of Plato, and the earliest is from 1,200 years after his death. Yet postmodern scholars rarely question the authenticity of the writings of Plato, while constantly questioning the authenticity of the New Testament! Dr. Paul Elliot

The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 confirmed that we still have the same Old Testament as they did at Jesus’s day. The survival of thousands of New Testament manuscripts confirms that the New Testament writings were also providentially preserved. The question among textual scholars is not whether some words are missing, but which variant readings, in a few minor cases, are the correct ones. AIG

The exegesis of relevant Scriptures demonstrates that the doctrine of preservation is not directly taught as some evangelicals and KJV-only advocates believe. In fact, the evidence presented indicates that many of the verses that have been used “to directly prove the doctrine of preservation have been misinterpreted and misapplied.”79 The verses do teach the preservation of God’s revelation, but nothing specifically applies them directly to the written Word.80 God’s promises are truthful and, therefore, will endure forever because they cannot be thwarted or changed. Conclusions from scriptural data strongly assert that the truth of the written Word of God stands forever and cannot be shaken or moved. His decrees are absolutely immutable and infallible. Yet history proves that His written revelation is also preserved, but not miraculously, in a specific tablet, scroll, or document. So, the case for providential preservation rests on theological grounds through historical and manuscript evidence rather than on purely exegetical grounds. TMSJ 19/1 (Spring 2008) 71-90

 

[oldbadger]

This is a public thread not a private debate. I can respond to whomsoever I wish.

Indeed, but I was not telling you not to respond, I was simply telling you that I was responding to Oeste's post to me.

The Scriptures that you presented as proof of your assertion "where Jesus shows that he is NOT God" was fallacious. None supported your allegation,

Nah...... they all showed that Jesus is not God. For instance, Jesus referred to God's Temple as just that..... not his own.

As to your final question your "thinking" the answer is a simple "yes or no" is superficial considering the depth of the subject. The Scriptures as originally written are without error.

Nah...... the subject is straightforward. You have answered that 'Yes' the whole of the bible, every word, is the unerring word of God as written by his ordained prophets and apostles. Now I can delve a little more deeply into your belief.

............... the Lord put this revelation completely in writing. ..........

Just thinning out your para there. The above is the only claim I need to read from you.

The authority of the Holy Scriptures obligates belief in them. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church but on God the author alone,

There....... see? Jesus referred to God's Temple, nothing about his ownership, and you are required, obligated, to take notice of this verse.

The testimony of the church of God may stir and persuade us to adopt a high and reverent respect for the Holy Scriptures.

Whooooaaaa! Which Church? There are over 3000 Christian Churches, Denominations and Creeds, so you need to name your Church.

Nothing is ever to be added to the Scriptures.............

Cool........ this is your rulebook that I will need to be using, very soon.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the inward illumination of the Spirit of God is necessary for a saving understanding of what is revealed in the Word.

Oh no you don't! You quote the bible or nothing from now on, if you are to remain within your tenets, methinks.

We have this promise from Christ Himself, who declared that until heaven and earth shall pass away, not a single letter nor even the smallest stroke of a single letter of the Scriptures shall be taken away (Matthew 5:18).

Misquote! Rubbish! Jesus was referring to the 613, the laws of Moses. You're breaking your own rukles already!

Although we do not have the original manuscripts, it is clear that God has providentially preserved His Word in the original languages.

Wrong! Jesus's language was Eastern Aramaic and you only have a very few words of it in the New Testament.

For example, there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the books of the Greek New Testament (over 5800 now RB) some of them from as early as 50 years after the time of the apostles (a new discovery brings the date back to 50-100 C.E. RB).

Waffle! John's gospel wasn't written until 100-120CE for a start.

The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 confirmed that we still have the same Old Testament as they did at Jesus’s day. The survival of thousands of New Testament manuscripts confirms that the New Testament writings were also providentially preserved. The question among textual scholars is not whether some words are missing, but which variant readings, in a few minor cases, are the correct ones. AIG

Geza Vermes translated the Dead Sea Scrolls........ and he also wrote 'the changing faces of Jesus'. As you probably know he was a priest and eventually left the church.

The exegesis of relevant Scriptures demonstrates that the doctrine of preservation is not directly taught as some evangelicals and KJV-only advocates believe..............

You're breaking your own rules. You're quoting from other than the bible.

Now.......... Jesus was not his name. So let's start with the real name of Jesus, please, since accuracy is your goal.
Do you know the real name of Jesus?
Oh, go on...... name all the disciples as well....
See? We've started..

 

[Rick B]

Indeed, but I was not telling you not to respond, I was simply telling you that I was responding to Oeste's post to me.

Nah...... they all showed that Jesus is not God. For instance, Jesus referred to God's Temple as just that..... not his own.

Nah...... the subject is straightforward. You have answered that 'Yes' the whole of the bible, every word, is the unerring word of God as written by his ordained prophets and apostles. Now I can delve a little more deeply into your belief.

Just thinning out your para there. The above is the only claim I need to read from you.

There....... see? Jesus referred to God's Temple, nothing about his ownership, and you are required, obligated, to take notice of this verse.

Whooooaaaa! Which Church? There are over 3000 Christian Churches, Denominations and Creeds, so you need to name your Church.

Cool........ this is your rulebook that I will need to be using, very soon.

Oh no you don't! You quote the bible or nothing from now on, if you are to remain within your tenets, methinks.

Misquote! Rubbish! Jesus was referring to the 613, the laws of Moses. You're breaking your own rukles already!

Wrong! Jesus's language was Eastern Aramaic and you only have a very few words of it in the New Testament.

Waffle! John's gospel wasn't written until 100-120CE for a start.

Geza Vermes translated the Dead Sea Scrolls........ and he also wrote 'the changing faces of Jesus'. As you probably know he was a priest and eventually left the church.

You're breaking your own rules. You're quoting from other than the bible.

Now.......... Jesus was not his name. So let's start with the real name of Jesus, please, since accuracy is your goal.
Do you know the real name of Jesus?
Oh, go on...... name all the disciples as well....
See? We've started..

Here are those Scriptures that you claim "they all show that Jesus is not God".

More Scripture, where Jesus shows that he is NOT God:-

Mat {6:30} Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Mat {3:9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Mat {5:8} Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Jesus uses the 3rd person, not the first. These examples are found EVERYWHERE in the Gospels.

And all the followers were titled 'children of God'. Here, let me show you....
{5:9} Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing where any show that Jesus is not God. Would you please highlight that phrase or specific concept. Also where is anything about a temple in any of them?

Which church? The church universal. The bride of Christ. The elect.

When it is stated that nothing is to be added to God's word that is exactly what that means.
"Nothing is ever to be added to the Scriptures, either by new revelation of the Spirit or by human traditions.9"

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

2Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I would add by way of warning Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

What this means is that man is not to take God's written revelation and alter it in such a way as to pervert its teachings. But to translate the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, currently available, into the present languages keeping in mind the historical setting and intention of the original authors. There are two major methods of translation. The dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two dissimilar translation techniques used to achieve differing levels of literalness between the original and target languages of a text. Both of these techniques are used in biblical translation. The Dynamic is more of a thought for thought, the Formal more of a word for word.

What this does not mean is that when translating from the ancient texts the translators cannot, with the best of their ability, assign to the current language the best meaning and intention of the author from the original language. It also does not mean that no one is to study and comment and read commentaries or church history to further our understanding of God's Word.

As far as "misquoting" Matt. 5:18 in support of My position, I could also present Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.
Moses is here stating that the Torah (the first five books of the O.T.) are Law. We also have "The Law of Christ" in the N.T..

The original language of the O.T. is Hebrew then translated into Greek as the Septuagint which was what Christ and the Apostles quoted almost exclusively. The N.T. was originally written in Koine Greek with just a smidgen of Aramaic.

Now for:
Me - For example, there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the books of the Greek New Testament (over 5800 now RB) some of them from as early as 50 years after the time of the apostles (a new discovery brings the date back to 50-100 C.E. RB).

You - Waffle! John's gospel wasn't written until 100-120CE for a start.

So? John's gospel was the last gospel written. Mark's the first. We have numerous manuscripts besides the gospel of John in the manuscript tradition.

"It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

Despite being almost 2,000 years old (written ca. 45-90 A.D.), with thousands of Greek manuscripts and other translations in existence, the text of the New Testament today remains essentially unchanged. As of 2014, there are 5,840 Greek manuscripts and portions. In addition, the New Testament was copied in different languages (Latin, Ethiopian, Slavic, Armenian, Syriac, etc.) and these copies total over 19,000 additional manuscripts. In other words, today, in total, we have over 25,000 complete or partial New Testament manuscripts. Given the uniquely large number of manuscripts, the relatively short length of time involved in many cases from composition to manuscript, and the ravages of history, this is something unparalleled – true for no other ancient book in the world, religious or secular. In other words, as New Testament manuscripts were copied by the thousands and sent throughout the world, the fact of their resulting stability indicates extreme care in copying and helps us get as close to the originals as possible.

The bottom line is that nothing of the originally inspired New Testament text is missing from our manuscript evidence because the extremely small minority of uncertain readings still remains among the textual variations. In other words, absent the original writings, but given the very large number of manuscripts the original is still somewhere to be found in the variants which can be accessed in a good critical edition of the New Testament. In his book on New Testament textual criticism, David Alan Black concludes “The sheer number of witnesses to the text of the New Testament makes it virtually certain that the original text has been preserved somewhere among the extant (existing) witnesses.” J. K. Elliott and Ian Moir write in their book on New Testament manuscripts that, “recent scholarly attempts to edit the New Testament text is done with the confidence that the original text is there to be discovered in the manuscripts.”

In other words, we can trust every word of the New Testament – and this is precisely what we should do. We should do this first and foremost because it is the word of God. But if not for this reason, then for no other reason than that the textual, archaeological, prophetic, legal and other historical data requires it." Dr. Daniel Wallace

 

[oldbadger]

.......................Also where is anything about a temple in any of them?

Already quoted before:-
Mat {21:12} And Jesus went into the temple of God,

So? John's gospel was the last written. Mark's the first. We have numerous manuscripts besides the gospel of John.

And John was an apostle, but not the disciple.
Neither Matthew nor Luke were witnesses..... they needed to copy what Mark wrote, quite often word-for-word. But Mark was a witness.
Now...... you failed. Even amongst all that waffle you could not hide the fact that you cannot name him, nor his disciples.
You do not know his name, but repeat the name thought up a few hundred years ago.
You cannot even give an accurate year of birth, or even guess within a few years.
And yet you demand that you know he is God.

I don't believe you.

 

[Rick B]

Already quoted before:-
Mat {21:12} And Jesus went into the temple of God,

And John was an apostle, but not the disciple.
Neither Matthew nor Luke were witnesses..... they needed to copy what Mark wrote, quite often word-for-word. But Mark was a witness.
Now...... you failed. Even amongst all that waffle you could not hide the fact that you cannot name him, nor his disciples.
You do not know his name, but repeat the name thought up a few hundred years ago.
You cannot even give an accurate year of birth, or even guess within a few years.
And yet you demand that you know he is God.

I don't believe you.

Already quoted before:-
Mat {21:12} And Jesus went into the temple of God,
Why are you offended? Just exactly what would you expect God's temple to be referred as except the temple of God?

And John was an apostle, but not the disciple.
Since an Apostle is also a Disciple this makes no sense.

Neither Matthew nor Luke were witnesses..... they needed to copy what Mark wrote, quite often word-for-word. But Mark was a witness.
Since this is contrary to the Biblical record you will need to demonstrate from Scripture and scholarly sources to support your assertion, otherwise it is just unfounded banter.

Now...... you failed. Even amongst all that waffle you could not hide the fact that you cannot name him, nor his disciples.
This is a most ridiculous statement. You claim umbridge because we English speaking Christians use the English translation of the Bible that employs the English rendition of the Hebrew names.

"Some people claim that our Lord should not be referred to as “Jesus.” Instead, we should only use the name “Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

As for the controversy over the letter J, it is much ado about nothing. It is true that the languages in which the Bible was written had no letter J. But that doesn’t mean the Bible never refers to “Jerusalem.” And it doesn’t mean we cannot use the spelling “Jesus.” If a person speaks and reads English, it is acceptable for him to spell things in an English fashion. Spellings can change even within a language: Americans write “Savior,” while the British write “Saviour.” The addition of a u (or its subtraction, depending on your point of view) has nothing to do with whom we’re talking about. Jesus is the Savior, and He is the Saviour. Jesus and Yeshuah and Iesus are all referring to the same Person.

The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter.

We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation.

You cannot even give an accurate year of birth, or even guess within a few years.
I never attempted to. I don't recall being challenged to. "Strawman". Why are you so angry?

And yet you demand that you know he is God.
Demand? I don't think that is the correct word. I would never say that I demand that I know He (Jesus) is God. That just doesn't sound like proper word use in that statement. I would unequivocally state the I believe that Jesus is God. That He is one Person of the ontological Trinity. Also that the Bible declares that Jesus is God.

I don't believe you.
Being a Deist you're not a believer in the orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith period.

Your silly arguments that you have presented absent any scholarly support coupled with the fact that you have not offered any refutation of the many Biblical citations and syllogisms that I have proposed in this thread, all the while only advancing argumentative personal opinions lacking any Biblical, logical or civil content, suggests that perhaps you might want to invade a thread more suitable to your style of argumentation.

 

[Riders]

I still don't understand why the Trinity word isn't in the new testamenet. If it were true it would be there. God in 3 persons with one head, is a 3 headed monster.

 

[Riders]

Heres an interesting little scripture:

Matthew 26:36-46 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked.

If Jesus is God why is he praying to his Father .Heres a better question if the bible says he God then why is he begging God to let him get out of being crucified? Better yet if the bible says he is God why didn't he save himself?

 

[Riders]

Those are reasonable questions to ask which are smart and on topic. If you tell me to shoe away and go play again I don't belong here Ill know your not playing fair.

 

[oldbadger]

Mat {21:12} And Jesus went into the temple of God,
Why are you offended? Just exactly what would you expect God's temple to be referred as except the temple of God?

Indeed. Not Jesus's or Yeshua BarYosef's Temple, but God's Temple.
Yeshua BarYosef was not God.

And John was an apostle, but not the disciple.
Since an Apostle is also a Disciple this makes no sense.

Paul was an apostle, but certainly not a disciple.
The son of Zebedee did not write G-John. Simple.

Since this is contrary to the Biblical record you will need to demonstrate from Scripture and scholarly sources to support your assertion, otherwise it is just unfounded banter.

Rubbish. Why do you think that the first three gospels are called the synoptics?
Have you actually studied any of this at all?

This is a most ridiculous statement. You claim umbridge because we English speaking Christians use the English translation of the Bible that employs the English rendition of the Hebrew names.

They weren't Hebrew names!
Hebrew, or the language of Judeans, was Western Aramaic. Galileans spoke Eastern Aramaic.
If a person was called Cephas, then his name is Cephas all around the World. In fact nearly all of the disciples' names have been changed.
The fact that Galileans spoke a different dialect is mentioned, of course. Yeshua BarYosef spoke Galilean.

“Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew.

You're the one who proposes that 'the bible declares that Jesus is God'....... and you can't get his name right.
You demand accuracy and fail yourself.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Question:- What is the point of calling people names that they never heard in their entire lives?
If you want biblical/scriptural accuracy you must start somewhere, and names is a good foundation. Then you can move on to biblical truths and biblicals innaccuracies, and biblical lies.

I never attempted to. I don't recall being challenged to. "Strawman". Why are you so angry?

If you are seeking the truth of the NT you would need to start with names, and then commence at the very beginning of the NT story, which is probably the nativity.
And you don't seem to have worked out a date?

I would unequivocally state the I believe that Jesus is God. That He is one Person of the ontological Trinity. Also that the Bible declares that Jesus is God.

You stated that the bible declares Jesus is God, which of course he was not.