Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Myth of Jesus, page-587

First 587 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
whereu

12,140 Posts.

0

22/04/18

17:59

Post #: 32614240
Share
Originally posted by wotsup ↑

I might be pre-judging but I expect you won't be interested in what the actual Bible says?
Even though it is only a snippet, it is not short and neither will I be involved in cherry picking.

Some of the verses I quoted said directly that Jesus is God
If where going to be blunt as you put it, your quote here is not only rubbish, but not true.

Well, well, you are getting very ????? about all this and you were suggesting how I would react about the views you put forward and yet you appear to be far worse in this regard yourself.
I might be wrong, it's coming across like your insisting it’s justifiable to read verses this way and how dare you even attempt to challenge that?
---------------
It's not only about the verses that wotsup chooses. My post was mainly about the ones I chose from a variety of sources that agreed with each other.

It makes NO difference where, whom or how many mothers you got the "limited" cherries from, and you call them "sources", for what, I would be asking, or are you just swallowing what "they" say or suggest with these verses and source, surely not?

OK then, lets have a look at your source for your bold claim following it, or is this source your referring to, what someone else is parroting:
The Thomas issue;
10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Your claim - The Father is God and by implication so is Jesus (they are in each other).
In fact in another post, you left OUT the implication term and then insisted that your 2-3 verses actually said and now question about it, that Jesus was God.

Now if you can't see how the following verse blows your claim here right out of the water which you are supporting from the verse above it, then I'm father ???? Xmas haha

John 17:21 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

So if we read it as you suggest, ALL become God by implication or directly now going by your latest statement = This support/claim, I'm sorry falls flat on it's face, Big time.
------------------
The other one, your said source, backup, Jesus's nature being like God's, very simple, He effectively had his God and Father within him without measure, and doing the Fathers WILL, so logic and commonsense would tell one without going further, the nature of God would be shown, expressed from Jesus.
And Jesus doing the Fathers will, put aside, humbled himself and didn't big note himself, so to speak.
Jesus himself says around 4 times in John, I can do nothing of myself and again, the answers to why he relied on the Father are screamingly "obvious", just on the snippet I provided, but apparently you have a problem with verses I provide, trinity clan are the same, in fact they don't read most, perhaps your doing the same?

That aside, being the nature of God is not supporting the claim that Jesus is The God.
-------------------------
Now your other and final said source in the initial post form which your making you bold claim from, I can only assume your referring to the I AM subject, and that falls head over hills about two verses away from where the I AM is mentioned in the OT.
The NT, one of use of it (the rightful one only), with the whole truth is not a contradiction, because in the mind and plan of God, Jesus was before Abraham.

Now one of your latter/additional said sources;

Even the alleged prophecy in Isaiah of the coming of Christ refers to him as God

The Almighty God and Father which has clearly been the area of our discussions – So therefore I’m sorry this claim is NOT truth either.

Clearly you haven’t done much research to make this claim, but putting research aside, lets cover a snippet?

OH,,, and yea,,,, and have you ever heard me say that Jesus isn't or can't be referred to as a god and have I ever said that the Bible doesn't say so, just in case this is a back door you have in place?

Isa 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

DYOR – The word “The” where it’s placed here is not found in the Hebrew = Fact.
The word “Strong” is more like the correct word here instead of mighty as well going by the Hebrew.
Not that that matters as the word mighty is used in the Bible for men, rulers etc and in fact, I’m quite sure a Tree is referred to as mighty.

Never do we see Jesus referred to as The Almighty God, Most high.

Everlasting Father = Ha, ha, Trinity “should” be in a pickle over this one alone, as there is no way they say, Jesus is The Father.
So this rules the term of Jesus being The Almighty God above out.

One also can be deemed as a Father of a new beginning that they were involved in or responsible for, Jesus being the firstborn from the dead, hence being the Father of it, but he still has a Father, The Father of Lights.

So lets see what the God term above maybe be referring to;
Have you seen the following and digested it’s meaning?

John 10:34-35 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

1 Cor 8:5-6 - For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

But let’s put the Greek perspective truth back in the verse 6.
Yet to us one God, the Father, of whom the things all, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, on account of (or) for the sake of, whom the all things, and we for the sake of, (or) on account of, (or) because of Him (Jesus).
Hence Jesus being at the forefront of God’s creation, mind and plan as in, slain before the foundation of the world etc.

But the debate issue if you want to call it that, is not about that, it's whether Jesus is a 1/3 of The Almighty God and Father, the most highest and He is Not.

The government shall be on his shoulders, well,,,,, according to many, at the timing of this prophesy, Jesus is supposed to all ready be part of this ONE God = So that can’t work.
God later on puts all things into Jesus’s hands, which effectively, they were partially already in his hands if he is 1/3 of this one God.

Shall be called – Well that is clearly future and yet people are claiming he already is God, again can’t work.

His “name” shall be – Jesus also has a name in Rev, The Word of God, but there is No Way that makes him the “actual” word of God and we know this for certainty because Jesus himself around four times in John says, He spoke the words OF the Father that he was given.
But never the less, it’s all future context and if he was currently God at the time of this prophesy, he pretty much has these titles already.

Expand

I read this far to realize that this "debate" has degenerated into a slanging match.

I might be pre-judging but I expect you won't be interested in what the actual Bible says?
Even though it is only a snippet, it is not short and neither will I be involved in cherry picking.

Some of the verses I quoted said directly that Jesus is God
If where going to be blunt as you put it, your quote here is not only rubbish, but not true.

Well, well, you are getting very ????? about all this and you were suggesting how I would react about the views you put forward and yet you appear to be far worse in this regard yourself.
I might be wrong, it's coming across like your insisting it’s justifiable to read verses this way and how dare you even attempt to challenge that?

No point continuing this slanging match.
Cheers
whereu
1 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

KAO

Kaoko is hunting copper on Namibia's quietest frontier. Now the drill bit has to talk

LISTEN: HotCopper Wire Podcast #051 – The President who cried peace

Expert Exchange: US-Iran ceasefire – What it means for markets, oil, and the Middle East

From the Wire: Peace hype will come – once everyone gets over disbelief

IPO momentum, small-cap strength, and sector opportunities

First 587 Last