What Makes Jesus The Son Of God.The Son Of God Theory.

[Deut 13:1]

The first Christians, they were Jews, in Jerusalem, do you believe they were wrong?

Yes.

What about ALL the prophecies that came true about Jesus, how he was pierced, his hands and feet and side, his bones not broken,his garments and lots cast, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, money thrown into God's houlse, price given for Potter's field, crucified with thieves, forsaken by his disciples, accused by false witnesses, silent before his accusers, wounded and bruised, smitten and spit upon, mocked, fell under the cross, made intercession for his persecuters, rejected by his own people, hated without a cause, friends stood afar off, people shook their heads, stared upon, to suffer thirst, gall and vinegar offered to him, his forsaken cry, comitted his spirit to God, heart broken, darkness over the land, buried in a rich man's tomb, born of the seed of woman, born of a virgin, son of God, seed of Abraham, Son of Isaac, Son of Jacob, Tribe of Judah, Family Line of Jesse, House of David, Born at Bethlehem, Presented with Gifts, Herod Kills Children, His pre-existence, called Lord, called Immanuel, called prophet, priest, judge, king, special anointing of Holy Spirit, his zeal for God, Preceded by a messenger, ministry begins in Galilee, of miracles, parables, would enter temple, enter Jerusalem on a donkey, called a stone of stumbling to Jews, Light to gentile, resurrection, ascension, seated on right hand of God... and I can give you both the OT and NT verse for EVERY ONE of those prophecies. Why can you not believe?

Sorry another mistranslation, you're thinking of Psalm 22:17, the hebrew word is ki-ari, similar to the hebrew word for gouged or pierced, but in reality means, "Like a lion". I could continue to go down the list, but you get the point. Let me know when you choose to address my points, instead of throwing MORE out there, without addresses the rebuttals.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah and archeaologists have backed him up as well. If he was so precise in regards to the more minor details, what was his motive for embellishment in the major subject matter in which he articulated in the books of Luke and Acts?

How much detail did you find in the Iliad? How much detail do you think you'll find in the book of Mormon? Your logic is as faulty as your reason.

 

[Popeyesays]

The women is Isaiah's wife. Look to Isaiah 8:3.

Okay, I have read the eighth chapter
"8,1 And the LORD said unto me: 'Take thee a great tablet, and write upon it in common script: The spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth; 8,2 and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.' 8,3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. {S} Then said the LORD unto me: 'Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz.
(Nev'im (Prophets), Yeshayahu (Isaiah))

WHo is this individual in the historical record? The ONLY hit for the name of this king-to-be is this particular verse of Isaiah. It has no reference again anywhere. Historically, who was he? I'm not trying to be combative, I just wish to know if I look in the chronicle of Kings after Ahaz, who is he?
Regards,
Scott

 

[joeboonda]

Yes.

Sorry another mistranslation, you're thinking of Psalm 22:17, the hebrew word is ki-ari, similar to the hebrew word for gouged or pierced, but in reality means, "Like a lion". I could continue to go down the list, but you get the point. Let me know when you choose to address my points, instead of throwing MORE out there, without addresses the rebuttals.

So being pierced by a nail is not as bad as being pierced by a Lion's claw? All, I know is that is a long list of prophecies, and when I was presented with them, I was convinced, overwhelmed, really. You do not think there is even the slightest chance Jesus is who he said he was? Just maybe? You just seem so convinced that you are absolutely correct, as am I convinced that I am. Anyway, Peace, I have enjoyed interacting with you, I gonna sign off for the night. God bless you.

 

[Popeyesays]

"and I can give you both the OT and NT verse for EVERY ONE of those prophecies. Why can you not believe?"

Part of the problem is that the Old Testament you read and the TaNakh that Jews read are not entirely the same document for content. The books are not all the same and they are not in the same order. The Old Testament was also translated from the Greek, which was translated from the Hebrew in the first place. Many Jewish scholars of the period were infuriated that the Septaguint was made at all, insisting that only the Hebrew text could contain the word of God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Deut 13:1]

So being pierced by a nail is not as bad as being pierced by a Lion's claw? All, I know is that is a long list of prophecies, and when I was presented with them, I was convinced, overwhelmed, really. You do not think there is even the slightest chance Jesus is who he said he was? Just maybe? You just seem so convinced that you are absolutely correct, as am I convinced that I am. Anyway, Peace, I have enjoyed interacting with you, I gonna sign off for the night. God bless you.

Did you even read what I said? It means, "Like a lion" not "Pieced like a lion".

It has NOTHING to do with piece/gouge.

Yes, well thus far my rebuttals of: Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, and Psalms 22 (in this thread) have not been addressed whatsoever. So you just throwing out more nonsense for me to waste my time addressing is something I have better things to do...

When you choose to stick to an argument you present, we can talk. Well, you're convinced that you're right because you're reading someone's opinion who believes in Christ. You're reading my opinion without mistranslation supported by thousands of Rabbi's, torah scholars, and anyone with basic knowledge of Hebrew.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Okay, I have read the eighth chapter
"8,1 And the LORD said unto me: 'Take thee a great tablet, and write upon it in common script: The spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth; 8,2 and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.' 8,3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. {S} Then said the LORD unto me: 'Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz.
(Nev'im (Prophets), Yeshayahu (Isaiah))

WHo is this individual in the historical record? The ONLY hit for the name of this king-to-be is this particular verse of Isaiah. It has no reference again anywhere. Historically, who was he? I'm not trying to be combative, I just wish to know if I look in the chronicle of Kings after Ahaz, who is he?
Regards,
Scott

Hi scott,
Thank you for being honest. This is what Rashi said, it is basically agreed upon by all Torah scholars.

He is the very son whom the prophetess called Immanuel, since the Holy One, blessed be He, would be at the aid of Hezekiah when he would reign. [It is impossible to say that it was another son, for we learned [in Seder Olam ch. 22] that in the fourth year of Ahaz, this prophecy was said, and in the fourth year of Ahaz, Pekah was assassinated, and it is impossible for two children to be born in one year, one after the other.] And Isaiah his father called him Maher- shalal-hash-baz, because of the calamity destined to befall Rezin and the son of Remaliah, who were coming to wrest the kingdom from the House of David and to curtail the kingdom of Hezekiah.

 

[spacemonkey]

The first Christians, they were Jews, in Jerusalem, do you believe they were wrong? What about ALL the prophecies that came true about Jesus, how he was pierced, his hands and feet and side, his bones not broken, his garments and lots cast, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, money thrown into God's houlse, price given for Potter's field, crucified with thieves, forsaken by his disciples, accused by false witnesses, silent before his accusers, wounded and bruised, smitten and spit upon, mocked, fell under the cross, made intercession for his persecuters, rejected by his own people, hated without a cause, friends stood afar off, people shook their heads, stared upon, to suffer thirst, gall and vinegar offered to him, his forsaken cry, comitted his spirit to God, heart broken, darkness over the land, buried in a rich man's tomb, born of the seed of woman, born of a virgin, son of God, seed of Abraham, Son of Isaac, Son of Jacob, Tribe of Judah, Family Line of Jesse, House of David, Born at Bethlehem, Presented with Gifts, Herod Kills Children, His pre-existence, called Lord, called Immanuel, called prophet, priest, judge, king, special anointing of Holy Spirit, his zeal for God, Preceded by a messenger, ministry begins in Galilee, of miracles, parables, would enter temple, enter Jerusalem on a donkey, called a stone of stumbling to Jews, Light to gentile, resurrection, ascension, seated on right hand of God... and I can give you both the OT and NT verse for EVERY ONE of those prophecies. Why can you not believe?

For one thing all of the NT prophicies were penned after the death of Jesus. Its easy to fulfill prophecies made to fit you.

 

[Darkdale]

For one thing all of the NT prophicies were penned after the death of Jesus. Its easy to fulfill prophecies made to fit you.

Especially when there is really no means for verification - faith based on hearsay.

 

[Popeyesays]

For one thing all of the NT prophicies were penned after the death of Jesus. Its easy to fulfill prophecies made to fit you.

Well, I find it doubtful Moses actually penned the pentateuch. SOmeone else wrote down what was a strong oral tradition.

When Homer composed the The Illiad and the Oddysey, he did not write it down. It was not written down for more than a century, yet the strong oral tradition preserved the work strongly enough that you can follow a story corroborated to large degree by the archeology and other written histories of the time.

The Gospels are the result of a very strong oral tradition, written down later. Just like the Torah, or the Illiad. Why should that oral tradition be less strong than Homer?

The Qur'an was not written down in official form until the time of Osman. Now there may be earlier versions of the Qur'an to examine to see how accurate the Osman version is to the earliest Qur'ans. I think that will enrich the Islamic tradition, though many Muslims would find the prospect insulting at least.

I believe that Holy Script can be read on many levels. Was the "child" of Isaiah this son of Ahaz, maybe so, that does not mean that the text might not have other levels of meaning that were satisfied by the revelation of Jesus. I do not think that Jesus was the fulfilment of all of Isaiah at alol. I think parts of Isaiah relate directly to Baha`u'llah - as well as parts of Micah. That's my privilege, to be convinced of the truth of a revelation and build my life around it. That's a Christian's privilege, a Jew's privilege, a Buddhist's privilege, a Parsee's privilege, a Muslim's privilege.

I admit that the Christian Bible has been poorly served by the retention of the Septaguint as authoritative text, but this does not mean that Christians do not have valid revelation in the New Testament.

I think the whole is summed up in this simple fact: Jesus was not hung up on being the "Son of God" According to the Gospels He never really makes the claim with His own lips. He does refer to Himself as the "Son of Man" more than two dozen times.

I do not believe that Jesus was the progeny of God, but I do feel, as does Muhammed that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit upon Mary, and if the title of "Son of God" offends anyone, they should look to the personality and works of Jesus and see if there is any ill in them.

Regards,
Scott
S

 

[Deut 13:1]

Well, I find it doubtful Moses actually penned the pentateuch. SOmeone else wrote down what was a strong oral tradition.

Where did we claim Moses wrote down the Oral law? The only claim is that he wrote down the Torah.

I believe that Holy Script can be read on many levels. Was the "child" of Isaiah this son of Ahaz, maybe so, that does not mean that the text might not have other levels of meaning that were satisfied by the revelation of Jesus.

One, the text simply says: Behold! The lord will give you a sign, a young woman will concieve and bear a son named Immanual. How do you get Jesus out of that? It's a regular woman, every person every created could fit this propehcy - if you believe it to be a Messiach propehcy.

I admit that the Christian Bible has been poorly served by the retention of the Septaguint as authoritative text, but this does not mean that Christians do not have valid revelation in the New Testament.

So you think that regardless of the numerous mistranslations, Jesus is still who he claims to be?

I think the whole is summed up in this simple fact: Jesus was not hung up on being the "Son of God" According to the Gospels He never really makes the claim with His own lips. He does refer to Himself as the "Son of Man" more than two dozen times.

Okay, so you believe he wasn't the Son of G-d? Good, now lets talk about the other Messiach propehcies, which would you like to discuss?

I do not believe that Jesus was the progeny of God, but I do feel, as does Muhammed that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit upon Mary, and if the title of "Son of God" offends anyone, they should look to the personality and works of Jesus and see if there is any ill in them.

Where to begin...

 

[Popeyesays]

Where did we claim Moses wrote down the Oral law? The only claim is that he wrote down the Torah....

I know that, but the Five books of the Torah give every evidence of different authors. I believe the Torah was a strong Oral tradition that was eventually written down. I think it is accurate in every sense that it could be within that limitation. And the Gospel itself was equally an oral tradition, but written down sooner than the Torah, so it should be equally strong.

One, the text simply says: Behold! The lord will give you a sign, a young woman will concieve and bear a son named Immanual. How do you get Jesus out of that? It's a regular woman, every person every created could fit this propehcy - if you believe it to be a Messiach propehcy.

So you think that regardless of the numerous mistranslations, Jesus is still who he claims to be?...

Absolutely! I believe Moses was Who He claimed to be. I believe Jesus was Who He claimed to be. I believe Muhammed was Who He claimed to be. I believe the Bab was Who He claimed to be. I believe Baha`u'llah was Who He claimed to be. I would also point out that Muhammed tells me Jesus is WHo He claimed to be, the Bab tells me the same thing, and Baha`u'llah says the same thing. So for me there is no doubt about Jesus.

Okay, so you believe he wasn't the Son of G-d? Good, now lets talk about the other Messiach propehcies, which would you like to discuss?

Where to begin...

I believe no semen, sperm or DNA was involved. If God could will Adam from the very earth with neither father nor mother, surely He can will a young woman to conceive through the act of His will alone, can He not? That is what Muhammed tells me. That's what the Bab tells me. That's what Baha`u'llah tells me.

"O Shaykh! Every time God the True One -- exalted be His glory -- revealed Himself in the person of His Manifestation, He came unto men with the standard of "He doeth what He willeth, and ordaineth what He pleaseth."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 67)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Deut 13:1]

I know that, but the Five books of the Torah give every evidence of different authors. I believe the Torah was a strong Oral tradition that was eventually written down. I think it is accurate in every sense that it could be within that limitation. And the Gospel itself was equally an oral tradition, but written down sooner than the Torah, so it should be equally strong.

Give one reason to support your contention of multiple authors.

I believe no semen, sperm or DNA was involved. If God could will Adam from the very earth with neither father nor mother, surely He can will a young woman to conceive through the act of His will alone, can He not? That is what Muhammed tells me. That's what the Bab tells me. That's what Baha`u'llah tells me.

Okay, and where is it prophecized that The Messiach would be born without a father?

Hint: You've already stated: Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mean a virgin birth.

 

[Popeyesays]

Give one reason to support your contention of multiple authors.

Okay, and where is it prophecized that The Messiach would be born without a father?

Hint: You've already stated: Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mean a virgin birth.

1) Nowhere in the Torah does it say Moses wrote the ENTIRE TOrah. He wrote down the LAW. How many centuries was it after the time of Moses that the Torah was written down in the form we know it today? As best we can tell the Torah and the rest of the TaNakh were written in the second century before the common era.
2) A lot of people think there were five authors at different times who produced the Pentateuch: one who is called "J" because he is associated with the individual who uses YHVH as the name of God, another, "E" who routinely names God "Elohim", a third, "D" the author of Deuteronomy, a fourth, "P" who wrote material of interest to the priesthood, and a fifth' "R" who redacted the whole work in the second century BCE.
3) There are multiple tellings of the same story, twice for the Creation, 2 descriptions of the covenant of Abraham, 2 stories of the naming of Isaac, 2 stories of Abraham deceiving a king by calling Sarah his sister, 2 different stories of Moses extracting water from a rock in two entirely different locations with the same name. In the story of Noah there are three differing verses about what numbers of animals were collected, Genesis in 7;11 says the water for the flood came from rain and from below ground, in 7:4 it says it was all rain. There are four different intervals for the duration of the rain and no way to reconcile them. The city of UR is named in reference to Abraham, but the culture did not exist untiluntil approximately the time the Torah was redacted. Manyh locations in the Torah are given names that did not exist (in fact the cities did not exist at all) in the time of Moses.

"Genesis 22:14: The verse states: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day..." There are other instances of this same phrase "to this day".
Genesis 36 names a whole list of kings who were not yet born in the day of Moses.

So there are a lot of reasons to doubt it was written entirely by Moses, even though Moses wrote the law and other parts at God's behest, it was added to until finally redacted in the second century BCE.

I believe that Isaiah referred tomore than one instance of the birth of "Emmanuel" one historically associated with Ahaz POSSIBLY, because there is not much mention of this wondrous son of Ahaz afterwards, and the other referring to the birth of Jesus. The Gospel, the Qur'an, the Qayyum'l Asma and the Kitab`i Iqan all tell me that He was conceived by the will of God upon Mary. SO I have no doubt. I do not believe all the prophecies of Isaiah were fulfilled by Christ, many of the referred to Baha`u'llah.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ernestine]

Jesus is the son of God because he was the first sprit person who was DIRECTLY created by GOD. Jesus was God's first-begotten. The scriptitures speak of Jesus as being a masterworker along side his "father" (God) as he created man and the world we live in. The scripture indicates that Jesus was especially fond of man, so what better choice than to have Jesus come to earth as a human and give himself as a ransom in exchange for man. Jesus is also called the "second/last Adam". The original Adam lost paradise & eternal life for us; Jesus the second/last Adam regained the hope for us.

 

[blueman]

Jesus is the son of God because he was the first sprit person who was DIRECTLY created by GOD. Jesus was God's first-begotten. The scriptitures speak of Jesus as being a masterworker along side his "father" (God) as he created man and the world we live in. The scripture indicates that Jesus was especially fond of man, so what better choice than to have Jesus come to earth as a human and give himself as a ransom in exchange for man. Jesus is also called the "second/last Adam". The original Adam lost paradise & eternal life for us; Jesus the second/last Adam regained the hope for us.

Jesus was not created by God, but, just like God the Father, God The Son is immaterial, timeless and infinite. In John 8:58, Jesus stated before Abraham was "I AM".

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus is the son of God because he was the first sprit person who was DIRECTLY created by GOD. Jesus was God's first-begotten. The scriptitures speak of Jesus as being a masterworker along side his "father" (God) as he created man and the world we live in. The scripture indicates that Jesus was especially fond of man, so what better choice than to have Jesus come to earth as a human and give himself as a ransom in exchange for man. Jesus is also called the "second/last Adam". The original Adam lost paradise & eternal life for us; Jesus the second/last Adam regained the hope for us.

If the creation of Jesus without a physical father is the only reason for glorifying Him, then how much MORE should we glorify Adam who was born without father OR mother? By the way the use of "WE" in English is because it is a Royal "we", a grammatical form and has nothing to do with multiplying or dividing God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[blueman]

If the creation of Jesus without a physical father is the only reason for glorifying Him, then how much MORE should we glorify Adam who was born without father OR mother? By the way the use of "WE" in English is because it is a Royal "we", a grammatical form and has nothing to do with multiplying or dividing God.

Regards,
Scott

Jesus is eternal and was not created, henceforth the comparison to Adam's creation is a mute point. The term "only begotten is used to describe the unique nature that God The Son had with God The Father (John 1:14, 18, 3:16 and 1 John 4:9). Christ possesses the nature of God, just as a son possesess the nature of his physical father.

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus is eternal and was not created, henceforth the comparison to Adam's creation is a mute point. The term "only begotten is used to describe the unique nature that God The Son had with God The Father (John 1:14, 18, 3:16 and 1 John 4:9). Christ possesses the nature of God, just as a son possesess the nature of his physical father.

I think you meant "moot" point, a mute point would be one that no one has presented or spoken.

Please understand that I do believe the Word is made flesh in Jesus, but I believe the same Word was made flesh in Abraham, Moses, Krshna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Muhammed, the Bab and Baha`u'llah (and others as well - some lost in history).

Now, do you belive that God's DNA was transmitted to Mary and made Jesus?
Main Entry: be·get
Pronunciation: bi-'get
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): be·got http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget002.wav=begot') /-'gät/; also be·gat http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget003.wav=begat') /-'gat/; be·got·ten http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?beget004.wav=begotten') /-'gä-t&n/; or -got; -get·ting
Etymology: Middle English begeten, alteration of beyeten, from Old English bigietan -- more at [size=-1]GET[/size]
1 : to procreate as the father : [size=-1]SIRE[/size]
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
- be·get·ter noun

So, which is it, sperm or God's will?

Regards,
Scott

 

[michel]

I think you meant "moot" point, a mute point would be one that no one has presented or spoken.

Please understand that I do believe the Word is made flesh in Jesus, but I believe the same Word was made flesh in Abraham, Moses, Krshna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Muhammed, the Bab and Baha`u'llah (and others as well - some lost in history).

Now, do you belive that God's DNA was transmitted to Mary and made Jesus?
Main Entry: be·get
Pronunciation: bi-'get
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): be·got /-'gät/; also be·gat /-'gat/; be·got·ten /-'gä-t&n/; or -got; -get·ting
Etymology: Middle English begeten, alteration of beyeten, from Old English bigietan -- more at [size=-1]GET[/size]
1 : to procreate as the father : [size=-1]SIRE[/size]
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
- be·get·ter noun

So, which is it, sperm or God's will?

Regards,
Scott

Popeye, have a can of spinach, you sound as if you need it..........