RSS

And Yet He Stayed . . . .

22 Oct

English: The Crucifixion Window at St. Matthew...

English: The Crucifixion Window at St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina by Henry E. Sharp & Sons, 1872. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This post is long-winded, pedantic and sometimes redundant.  I’m trying to be as careful as I can to deal with an issue that may confuse or even offend some readers.  I’m trying to dissect an idea that’s an article of faith for millions of people in a way that’s respectful while I remaining determined to explore some “logical unpleasantness” surrounding the question,

Is Christ God?

There are millions of sincere and dedicated Christians who believe that when the Christ walked the earth as if he were a man, he was actually God incarnate.  I.e., these people believe that God came down to earth in the “incarnate” (flesh and blood) form of a mortal man.  Perhaps they’re right.  I don’t know.

But, if the Bible is true, I can’t believe that Christ was God incarnate.  My notion of “logic” tells me that the Christ was not God, but instead the “Son of God” and  therefore a separate being just as surely as you and I are separate beings from our earthly fathers.

The very description of the Christ as the “Son of God” appears or is implied nearly 200 times in the New Testament.  The phrase “Son of God” clearly indicates that the Christ was not and is not God.  The words must mean what they say.  To say that I am the “son of Alex” necessarily means that “I am not Alex” since, by definitions of the words “father” and “son,” I can’t be my own father.    If the words “Son of God” in the Bible are true, then it follows that the Christ is related to God, but he is not actually God—any more than I can claim to be my own “father” or my own “son”.

Similarly, there are nearly 300 instances in the New Testament where the Christ is described expressly or by implication as the “son of man”.   If those words are true, we face a “which came first” question:  Which came first, God or man?  If God created man, God must’ve preceded man.  If Christ is God and Christ is the “son of man,” then it appears that man preceded the Christ and later created the Christ/God.

The truth, in my opinion, is that the Christ was both the “Son of God” and the “son of man”.  He has a divine father, and an earthly mother.  He is a transitional being that was neither fully divine in the sense of being “God” nor fully human in the sense of being a mortal born to an earthly mother and an earthly father.

The Death of God?

In support of my belief that the Christ was not God incarnate, I’ll first offer some speculation concerning my understanding of the Christ’s death and resurrection.  I can’t prove any of my conjecture and I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree with me.  I merely hope you’ll consider my observations.

If the Bible is true, the Christ actually died on the cross.  His corpse was laid in a tomb for three days, and then he rose back to life.   The salient point is that the Christ was actually and completely dead for three days.

If the Christ was actually God incarnate, then it appears that God was dead for three days, but that God nevertheless overcame death and rose back to life.

I believe that this world, this universe, runs on the will of God.  I believe He provides the energy that causes trees to grow, stars to shine and galaxies to spin.  If so, it seems to me that if God were absent for any reason, even for a micro-second, the entire universe would disintegrate and instantly cease to exist.

On the other hand, if the Christ were God, and God were truly “dead” for three days, then my notion of God’s necessity to the continuation of the universe would be shown to be false.  More importantly, if God could die for three days and the universe continued to spin on without incident, it would appear that the universe can run just fine without God.  Thus, if God were truly “dead” for three days, and the universe continued without adverse effect, it would indicate that God is no longer necessary to the mechanical operation of the universe.

Instead, the death of God would suggest that God had created a self-sufficient, self-sustaining, perpetual motion machine called the “universe” that—once created—was no longer dependent on its Creator.  Such universe could run “mechanically” in perpetuity, without any further input of God’s spiritual “energy”.

If God can die for three days and the universe continues without adverse consequence, then why couldn’t God die for three years, three centuries, three millennia or even for eternity—while the universe continued to unfold?

If the universe can run without God, why does the universe need God?

You and I would still need God as a means of salvation and to shield us from both death and damnation in the next life (assuming there even is a “next life” if God were dead).  But, in this life, our need for God would be debatable.  Ohh, if we prayed real hard, God might give us a new house or a spouse that we’re particularly hot for, but if the universe can run without God, God’s utility seems marginal.

I suppose that analysis might be correct, but I don’t believe it.  Again, I believe that if God were dead or otherwise somehow absent from this life, the universe would disappear as instantaneously as light from a room when someone hits the light switch.

If the Christ is God, then it should follow that when the Christ died for three days, so did God.  Can an “eternal” God die for even an instant?  Can a God who claims to be “eternal” nevertheless actually “die” for three days?  If God can die once, couldn’t He die again?  If He can die for three days, He can die for 300 trillion years.  If He can die for any measure of time from a micro-second to a millennium, He is not “eternal”.

If the Bible is true, God is eternal.  He can’t die—not even for three days.   The Christ, being partially human, could die.  You can die.  I can die.  God cannot.  Not even for an instant.

Therefore, if God is eternal and the Christ died on the cross, I can’t believe that the Christ was God incarnate.

(Some will argue that God was merely “incarnate” when the Christ died.  Therefore, while the fleshly “person” of Christ died on the cross, God, Himself, did not die.  I’ll address that argument below under the section on “God in Three Persons”.)

Actual evidence

I proceed on the presumption that the Bible is fundamentally true.  I absolutely believe in the “inerrant word of God”.  I do not, however, believe in the inerrant translations of man—and neither does anyone else who prefers some version(s) of the Bible and rejects others.   Insofar as you prefer (or even demand) a particular version of the Bible, you implicitly admit that you do not trust the other versions that were translated to read differently from your chosen Bible.

I have a computer program that includes at least ten versions of the Bible.  I can search out a particular verse in one version of the Bible and then call up the same verse in the other nine versions and compare the text of all ten versions to see the variations.  The fact that we don’t have a single translation of the Bible that we all agree to be perfect and “infallible”  is evidence that almost none of us believe that all translations of the Bible are “inerrant”.   Similarly, none of us can point with absolute certainty at the one Bible that may be “inerrant”.

If I had to guess, there may be twenty to thirty recognized translations of the Bible.  But there’s no point to multiple translations of the Bible unless each translation’s author sees some other Bible translations as including mistakes or even lies.  These mistakes can be small and merely stylistic, or they can be enormous (the Protestant and Catholic Bibles don’t even agree on the text of the Ten Commandments).

Personally, I doubt that any modern translation of the Bible is precisely inerrant.  Nevertheless, insofar as I profess to be a “Christian,” I have to believe that Bible is fundamentally true.  If I didn’t believe the Bible was fundamentally true, how could I believe in the Christ?  How could I claim to be a “Christian”?

So, operating on the assumption that the Bible is (fundamentally) true, here’s my Biblical “evidence” that the Christ was not and is not God:

Five Major Milestones

• According to Wikipedia,

“The Baptism is one of the five major milestones in the gospel narrative of the life of Jesus, the others being Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension.”

Those five major milestones are listed in chronological order.  I’ll offer some analysis of each of those five milestones—plus the prayer offered by the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night before his crucifixion.  However, I’m going to consider those six events out of chronological order with the Prayer in the Garden and the Crucifixion as last.

1.  Baptism

Wikipedia:

“Jesus came to the Jordan River where he was baptized by John. The baptismal scene includes the Heavens opening, a dove-like descent of the Holy Spirit, and a voice from Heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.’  Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:21-22”

Note that, in addition to John, there is evidence of three different beings at this Baptism:  1) the Christ; 2) the Holy Spirit (as a dove); and 3) the voice from Heaven that is presumably the voice of God.

If the Christ were God incarnate (the “Christ-God”), how do we explain the “voice from Heaven”?

Is the Christ a ventriloquist?  Does he throw his voice up into the clouds to create the illusion of a “god” other than Himself?  What would be the purpose of deceiving the mortals present at the Baptism into believing that the “Christ-God” was merely the “Son” of God and thus separate from and other than the actual “God” speaking from the cloud (and also separate from the Holy Spirit manifested as a dove)?

Are we to believe that a “Christ-God” could and would engage in deception?  If God is capable of deception, is God therefore capable of telling lies?  Doesn’t the Bible claim that God cannot lie?  If so, why would a Christ-God create the illusion of the “voice” of another “god” to fool the yokels?

If the Christ were God, what does it mean when the false or illusory “god” in the cloud says, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased”?  Could that sentence be translated to mean, “I am my own Son and I am well pleased with myself”?  Is God schizophrenic?  Is He vain?

If the Christ were God, why would God need to be baptized by an earthly prophet like John the Baptist?  For God’s salvation?  That makes no sense.  How could an earthly prophet have authority to baptize God, Himself?

If the Bible’s account of Christ’s Baptism is true, God, the Christ and the Holy Spirit are three different beings.

2.  Transfiguration

Wikipedia:

“The Transfiguration of Jesus is an event reported in the New Testament in which Jesus is transfigured (or metamorphosed) and becomes radiant upon a mountain. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36) describe it, and 2 Peter 1:16 refers to it.

“In these accounts Jesus and three of his apostles go to a mountain (the Mount of Transfiguration). On the mountain, Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light. Then the prophets Moses and Elijah appear next to him and he speaks with them. Jesus is then called ‘Son’ by a voice in the sky, assumed to be God the Father, as in the Baptism of Jesus.”

As in the Baptism, at the Transfiguration we also see reports of a mysterious voice emanating from a cloud or the sky.  If the “voice in the sky” isn’t God’s, whose voice is it?  Joe Jablonski’s?  Satan’s?  Jeeves, the butler’s?  A second example of the “Christ-God’s” predilection for ventriloquism?

When the “voice in the cloud” (Matthew 17:5) says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” what does it mean?

If the Christ is the “Son” of the source of the “voice in the cloud,” that voice must be one of the Christ’s parents.  There are three possible “parents”:  Mary, Joseph, and God.  Unless ventriloquism runs deep in the Christ’s earthly family, we can assume that neither Mary nor Joseph was the source of the “voice in the cloud”.

That implies that the “voice in the cloud” should be God’s.   More, insofar as the “voice” claims that the Christ is “my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” that “voice” clearly distinguishes between himself (“I”) and the Christ (“son” and “him”).

Insofar as the Christ is the “Son” of any being, that parent must have existed before the Christ existed.

Of course, Mary preceded the Christ—at least in terms of their earthly existence.  But God, as the Creator of both Mary and the Christ, must have preceded both of them.  Insofar as any being preceded the Christ, Christ cannot be the ultimate “Creator”.  In any case, if Christ has a Father—and that Father, by definition, existed before the Christ—then the Christ can’t be God—the first and eternal being who created all other things and beings.  If Christ is a “Son” of anyone, he can’t be God without changing the meaning of the world “son” so drastically, that that word becomes meaningless.

If the Christ is God, then each of the numerous instances in the New Testament that says he is the “Son of God,” is a lie.  If the Christ is not the “Son of God” (but is instead God, Himself), the New Testament and Christian faith may be false.

You can’t claim to have the alleged “Christ-God” standing on the ground and undergoing “transfiguration” while another apparent “God” is speaking from the clouds.  By definition, one or the other of those two “gods” must be false.  In a monotheistic religion, there can be only one God.  If there’s more than one God, then monotheism is false and the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are also false.

As in the Baptism, the Transfiguration also offers evidence that the Christ and God are two separate beings.  If the text of the Bible is true, I can’t see an alternative conclusion.  If the text of the Bible is untrue, then alternative conclusions are possible, but what foundation remains for the Christian faith?

“God In Three Persons”?

A “person” or “persona” is a kind of character that a man may sometimes assume or “play”.  As a very crude illustration, if I dress up in my work clothes, I might appear in the “person” of “Alfred the Construction Worker”.  If I dress up in a suit and tie, I might appear in the “person” of “Alfred the Church Goer”.  If I dress up in my pajamas, I might appear in the “person” of “Alfred the Sleeper”.  In each case—as construction worker, church goer, or sleeper—it’s still always “me” (the same man) but in three different “persons” or “personas”.

Many people believe that God is “in three persons” and can appear at any moment as:  1) the Father; 2) the Holy Spirit; or 3), as the Christ.

OK—I absolutely accept the existence of a Trinity that consists of three beings who are similar but nevertheless, separate:  1) the Father; 2) the Holy Spirit; and 3) the Christ.

I might even accept the “God-in-three-persons” concept so long as God only appears in any particular context as only one “person” at a time.  But when I see evidence in the Baptism, Transfiguration and as you’ll read, the Crucifixion, that God and the Christ are both present at the same time and in the same context—but still separate—the concept of the “God in three persons” seems irrational.

Again, in the Baptism (where we see the Christ and evidence of the Holy Spirit and God) we see all three alleged “persons” of God appearing simultaneously.  I know that nothing’s impossible with God, but seeing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three simultaneous “personas” makes as much sense to me as seeing myself simultaneously dressed up in my pajamas, construction clothes and best blue suit.  It just doesn’t make sense.

After all, if the Christ is God, when the “voice in the cloud” says “hear him ye,” we have some second being (either a being that is not God or is an illusion) saying “listen to the Christ”.  Why would the Christ rely on some “voice in the cloud” to tell his disciples to listen to him?  I guarantee that if I were God and I wanted you to listen to me, I wouldn’t need some mysterious “third person” speaking from a cloud to get you to pay attention.  As God, I could convince you all by myself that you had better, by damn, pay attention to me in all things.  So, why would a Christ-God employ to the deception (lie) of a “voice in the cloud”?

More, if the Christ and God were one in the same, the stories of the Baptism and Transfiguration are somewhat degrading.  I.e., if the Christ is God, but nevertheless chooses to perpetuate the illusion (by means of a “voice” emanating from a cloud) that He is not God but is instead the “Son” of God, is the Christ-God lying?  Or is He schizophrenic?  Does He suffer from “multiple personality disorder” (God in three “persons”)?  If God is the Christ and He is also the Holy Spirit, why pussyfoot around with “three persons”?  Why the masquerade?

I understand that belief in “three persons” of the same one God (rather than three separate, divine beings) is an act of faith.  I do not expect my notions of logic to overcome someone else’s faith.  Nevertheless, when I apply my “logic” to understanding the “three persons” argument, that argument seems irrational and even casts doubt on our understanding of God.

More, doesn’t the Bible warn each of us against being a “respecter of persons”?  Doesn’t the Bible say that God is not a “respecter of persons”.  If the Bible is true, and God does not respect “persons,” why would He resort to using them?

Can God deceive? Can he lie?  If we answer Yes to those questions and ignore the resulting contradictions in the text of the Bible, then we implicitly admit that the meaning of the words in the scripture is unfixed and can mean anything we want it to mean, whenever we like.

If the meanings of words in the Bible aren’t fixed, how can the Bible be “true”?

If the Bible is true, the Christ could not have been God incarnate.

 3.  Crucifixion

The third of the Christ’s “five major milestones” is his Crucifixion.  I’m going to deal with the implications of the Crucifixion (and also with the story of the Garden of Gethsemane) after I deal with two remaining “milestones”:  Resurrection and Ascension.

4. Resurrection

Wikipedia:

“The New Testament does not include an account of the ‘moment of resurrection’ and in the Eastern Church icons do not depict that moment, but show the Myrrh bearers, and depict scenes of salvation.”

We know that Christ “rose,” but the specific details of that rising took place within the closed tomb and beyond the sight of any mortal witness.  Therefore, we can’t know if God was present within the tomb at the moment of the Christ’s resurrection.

However, Acts 2: 29-31 declares, “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”  No one claims that the Christ raised himself.  Instead, the Christ was raised by God and that indicates two separate beings: one being raised (the Christ) and a second doing the “raising” (God).

The apostles “witnessed” the “facts” that the Christ had died on the cross and was sealed in the tomb.  Three days later, those same apostles “witnessed” the fact that the Christ was again alive.  But they did not witness the “moment” of the actual “resurrection”—they only witnessed the result (the Christ was again alive).

If the Bible is true and God raised the Christ to life, then it’s apparent that God and the Christ are two different beings.  Therefore, I can’t see how we could argue that Christ was God and died, and then, in the midst of his own death, raised Himself back to life.

If a “Christ-God” who seemed to be dead could nevertheless still resurrect himself, then he was never really dead.  He might’ve closed his eyes and held his breath for three days.  He might’ve even stopped his pulse and brain waves.  But despite all the apparent signs of mortal death, a “Christ-God” would have to be “playing possum” and somehow secretly alive throughout so he could command his body to open his eyes, start breathing and restore his pulse.

The only way I can see for the Christ to have died and been resurrected three days later is if a separate living force that had not died (God) engineered the Resurrection.

Those who believe in “God in Three Persons” might argue that God didn’t really die at the Crucifixion—that only one of his “persons” (the Christ) died.  But that’s a little like arguing that the man “Alfred Adask” didn’t die—only the legal fiction “ALFRED N ADASK” died.  Such claims deny common sense.  If Christ is God, how could the “person” of Christ die without causing God to also die?

Sure, we could argue that God and the Christ also exist as spiritual beings, so while the flesh of Christ died, the spirit of Christ (and God) survived.  But if only the fleshly “persona” of the Christ died, of what value was the alleged “sacrifice” of the Christ’s life?  If only a “persona” of God died, that’s a little like claiming that when I last took off my construction clothes that Alfred the Construction Worker died.  Well, what difference would that make if Alfred continued to live as Alfred the Writer, and Alfred the Radio Talk Show Host, and Alfred the blue-suited Church Goer?

If Christ is God, but God didn’t really die, then did the Christ ever really die?  If not, was the Christ’s sacrificial death real?  Was his Resurrection real if he didn’t first, actually die?  If there wasn’t a real and complete death, could there have been a “perfect sacrifice”?  If there were no “perfect sacrifice, and no real Resurrection, can the Christian faith be true?

The only way that I can see for the Resurrection to work as described in the New Testament, is if the Christ is one being who truly died and another being—God, who never died—brought the Christ back to life.  That means two separate beings, but not two “persons” (or “personas”) of the same, single being.

The Bible doesn’t provide express witness of the moment that God raised the dead Christ back to life, but that scenario is clearly implied.  If God (who was still alive) raised the Christ (who was dead) back to life, then it seems logical to conclude (as in the Baptism and Transfiguration) that God and the Christ must be two entirely different beings.

5.  Ascension

After his Resurrection and then being seen on earth for another 40 days, the Christ ascended to heaven.  Four sections of the New Testament describe the Ascension:

•  “after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.”—Mark 16:19:

The “person” of Alfred the Construction Worker cannot sit at the right hand of Alfred the Church Goer.  Similarly, I can’t see or imagine how God in the “person” of the Christ could sit at the right hand of God in the “person” of the Father.

•  “And he led them out until [they were] over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”—Luke 24:50-52:

In those verses, Luke offers no indication of whether the Christ is God or separate from God.

•  Acts 1:9-11 also depicts the Christ’s Ascension:

“And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.”

There’s that mysterious “cloud” again, but we don’t see express reference to God (as a second being) in addition to the Christ at the Ascension.

•  However, John 20:17 has been interpreted as a reference to the Ascension.  There, the Christ tells Mary Magdalene,

“Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”

If the Bible is true, and if Christ is God, why does he expressly say that he is returning to his (and our) “Father” and especially to his (and our) “God”?    If the Christ is the one true God, he can’t have a “Father” and certainly can’t recognize another “god” above Him.

As in the Baptism, Transfiguration, and Resurrection we see evidence in the Ascension that the Christ himself recognized that he is not God; that God is another being greater than the Christ.

Garden of Gethsemane

The night before he was crucified, the Christ brought his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane where he prayed to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.  This moment is not regarded as one of the “five major milestones” in the Christ’s earthly life, but it offers powerful evidence that the Christ was not God incarnate and was not a mere “persona” of God.

Matthew 26:36-43: “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.’ He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.’ 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.” . . .  He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

Luke 22:39-44 “Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. . . . He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Mark 14:32-36:  “They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.”  He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.  “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”  Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.   “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” . . . .

If the Bible is true; if the Bible is the “inspired word of God”; if the “word of God” is inerrant—then how can anyone read the three accounts of the Christ praying at Gethsemane and still argue that the Christ is God incarnate?

I recognize that some brilliant philosophers and biblical scholars may have devised astonishing rationales to argue that Christ is God, but the plain language of the three reports of the moment in Gethsemane make clear that (unless the Christ is lying or delusional), the Christ himself recognizes that God is someone other, and greater, than himself.

Here’s why:

• First, consider the adjectives and pronouns in the Christ’s prayer:  “My Father,” “I,” “me,” “my,” “you,” and “your”.  The Christ’s vocabulary makes clear that he regards God as a being other than himself.

So, who’s mistaken or lying?  The Christ?  Or the people who subscribe to the belief that the Christ was God incarnate?

•  Second, consider the context:  The Christ knows he is about to face great pain and probably death.  He is so anguished that “his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.”  Even the idiot apostles couldn’t stay awake while the Christ was praying.  He had no reliable earthy support. He was under so much stress that, according to Luke 22:43, an “angel from heaven strengthened him” implying that the stress was more than the Christ could bear on his own.

If the Christ were God, why would He be so anxious?  If there’s one being in all the universe who should never be anxious, it should be God.  The fact that the Christ is clearly anxious is evidence that he is not God.

If the Christ were God, how could any angel “strengthen him”?  By definition, there can be no source or reservoir of strength in the universe greater than that of God.  So, if the Christ is God, who could have more strength than he?  God may strengthen angels.  He may strengthen mortals.  But no angel can provide “strength” to God.  Thus, if it’s true that “an angel from Heaven strengthened” the Christ in his moment of anxiety, the Christ cannot be God.

When Christ prays “everything is possible for you” (God), he implicitly admits that not “everything” is possible for himself (Christ).  With that admission, the Christ admits that he is not God and not even equal to God.  If God is more powerful than the Christ, then the Christ can’t be God or even a persona of God.

• Third, what was the Christ doing at Gethsemane?

He was praying.

Does anyone “pray” to himself?  Don’t we necessarily “pray to” some being other than ourselves?

And who do we pray to?  A colony of ants?  A new-born kitten? A rock?

By definition we “pray” to that which we recognize as more powerful than ourselves.  There is no point in asking some ants, a kittens or a rocks to grant some personal request.  Those entities have no power to grant your requests.  Therefore we pray to someone who is more powerful than we are and therefore able to grant a request that is beyond our own power to achieve.

Who else could the Christ have been praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane, if not to God?  If the Christ was praying to God, it follows that the Christ is not God and that he and God are two separate and distinct beings.

If the Christ were God incarnate, then it would appear that his prayers in the Garden were directed to himself.  If so, when the Christ prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will,” did he really mean “My Self, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.  Yet not as I will, but as I will”?

That doesn’t make sense.  It’s irrational.  It’s crazy.  Are we to believe that the world’s Christians follow a savior who was in the habit of praying to himself?

If the Christ were God incarnate, and the Christ-God didn’t want to suffer the pain of crucifixion—guess what?—He didn’t have to.  As God, He could do whatever He pleased and nothing could compel Him to do that which He doesn’t want to do.  If the Christ were God incarnate and he was so appalled by the prospect of being crucified that “his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground,” all He had to do was say “To Hell with that!” and the crucifixion wouldn’t take place.

The separation between God and the Christ is evident throughout the New Testament.  I’ve spotted scores of such instances.  In every case, we see evidence that the Christ himself did not think of himself as God and instead recognized God as a being other than, and superior to, himself.  I haven’t seen a single instance in the Bible where the Christ clearly claims that he is God.  Insofar as such verses may arguably exist, they contradict scores, even hundreds of other verses, that indicate that the Christ is not God.

If the Christ didn’t believe that he was God, why should we?

If the Bible is true, the belief that the Christ was God incarnate is only a “doctrine” or “custom” of “man”.

3.  Crucifixion

Although the Crucifixion is the third of the “five major milestones” in the Christ’s earthly life, I’m going to comment on it last because, for me, one moment in the Crucifixion is the most important and revealing event in the Christ’s life:

 

From Wikipedia:

 

“The crucifixion of Jesus is an event that occurred during the 1st century AD. Jesus, who Christians believe is the Son of God as well as the Messiah, was arrested, tried, and sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally executed on a cross. Collectively referred to as the Passion, Jesus’ redemptive suffering and death by crucifixion represent the central aspects of Christian theology, including the doctrines of salvation and atonement.

“Jesus’ crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other ancient sources, and is regarded as a historical event.  Christians believe Jesus’ suffering was foretold in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Psalm 22, and Isaiah’s songs of the suffering servant.”

 

If Christ is the one, true God, there can be no other god.  But, if the Christ-God acted as a “servant” in his crucifixion, who did He “serve” when suffered on the cross?  Who was the Christ-God’s “master”?

If Christ were God incarnate, he couldn’t have served God (himself).  So who/what did He “serve” by his sacrifice and recognize as His master?  Satan?  Mankind?

The idea that the Christ-God would die as a servant to Satan is blasphemy.  But the idea that Christ-God would die as servant of mankind is just as unnerving.  It would indicate that the Christ-God exists to serve mankind; that man is the master and the Christ-God is the slave.  That idea is an appalling contradiction of the very concept of “God”.  God, by definition, is the master; He cannot be the servant.  We, the creations, are necessarily the servants of our Creator: God the master.

Wikipedia:

 “Christians have traditionally understood Jesus’ death on the cross to be a knowing and willing sacrifice (given that he did not mount a defense in his trials) which was undertaken as an “agent of God” to atone for humanity’s sin and make salvation possible. ”

A debt was owed to God by Adam and his descendants.  The only way the Crucifixion works as a “perfect sacrifice” made as payment for the debt owed is if the Christ is someone other than God.  If the Christ is God, who is His sacrifice being made to?  Himself?  That makes no more sense than me pulling $50 out of my right hand pocket, putting it in my left hand pocket, and calling it as “sacrifice”.  Are we to believe that the Christ’s sacrifice was made to mankind?  “God incarnate” sacrificed Himself to mankind?! 

Of course not.

The whole idea of the word “sacrifice” presumes that one being makes the sacrifice and another, completely different being receives the sacrifice.  One suffers a loss; the other experiences a gain.  There must be two distinct beings to achieve a genuine “sacrifice”.

If the Christ and God were a single being (God incarnate), the Crucifixion could not have been a “perfect sacrifice” to God.   If the Christ did not make a “perfect sacrifice” on the cross, the Christian faith is false and you and I should seek another path to salvation.

•  But there’s the moment in the midst of the Crucifixion that absolutely rings my bell.  For me, this moment communicates the essence and wonder of the Christian faith.  For me, this is the key. While suffering on the cross, the Christ said:

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”  Matthew 27:46

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Mark 15:34

For me, this plea and the following moments leading up to the Christ’s death mark the most important episode in the Christ’s life and the Christian faith.

•  First, when the Christ says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” he again—at the most stressful moment of his life—clearly indicates he and God are two different entities.

The Christ is not praying to himself.  He is not saying “My Self, my Self, why have I forsaken me?”

•  Second, the Christ believes that he has been “forsaken” and thereby indicates that he’s lost his faith in God and God’s protection.  The Christ’s plea implies that he has no expectation of any reward for his suffering or approaching death.  He feels “forsaken” and abandoned and he does not understand why.

•  I believe that if the Bible’s reports that Christ had previously walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the sick and raised the dead are true, then the Christ had sufficient personal power to get down off that cross any time he chose to do so.  He was not crucified as a helpless prisoner but rather as a voluntary, self-sacrifice.

But, even if the Christ could not dismount the cross under his own powers, I have no doubt that Satan was present at the Crucifixion in hopes that the Christ would lose his nerve and ask to be released from the cross and death.  Satan had to understand that if the Christ consented to be crucified, that the Crucifixion would guarantee Satan’s eventual destruction.  Satan would passionately desire that the crucifixion fail.  Therefore, if the Christ had asked Satan to get him off that cross, Satan would’ve done so in a heartbeat.

In the end, the Crucifixion was not about killing the Christ—it was about the Christ’s voluntary sacrifice of his own life.  If the Christ could not somehow remove himself from the cross as an act of his own will, then the crucifixion was not a true act of self-sacrifice, but merely the murder of a powerless man.

Surely, the Jews and Romans who participated in the Crucifixion did not regard the Christ’s death as a sacrifice.  They saw the Christ as a blasphemer and political dissident who challenged the established power structure.  They saw the Crucifixion exactly as they saw all other crucifixions:  as punishment to the offender and as a public warning to anyone else who dared to engage in dissent.  For them, the crucifixion was a murder, not a sacrifice.

If it’s true that a profound sacrifice had to be made, and the Powers That Be didn’t “sacrifice” the Christ, who did?

I think most people might say the answer to that question was “God”.  After all, aren’t we taught at John 3:16, that “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”?  Thus, it appears that God sacrificed His son, the Christ.

Maybe so, but it doesn’t make sense to me.  If you owed me $1,000, why would I voluntarily sacrifice my own son to me to pay your debt?  I might accept the sacrifice of your son to pay your debt, but I certainly wouldn’t accept the sacrifice of my son to pay your debt.  Why would God do otherwise?

It seems to me that no one can make a sacrifice to himself.    If the Christ’s life was sacrificed to God in atonement for Adam’s original sin, how could God make that sacrifice to Himself?  Again, that’s like me taking money from my left pants pocket and claiming that I “sacrificed” that money by putting it into my right pants pocket.  For me, by definition, a sacrifice must be made by one begin to another being.  You can’t truly “sacrifice” to yourself.

If so, how could God sacrifice his own son to Himself?  I don’t think He could.  God allowed His Son to be sacrificed, but the sacrifice had to be a voluntary act by the “Son”.  If so, the Son had to have the power to choose to make, or not make, that self-sacrifice.

If the Powers That Be didn’t sacrifice the Christ to God, and God couldn’t sacrifice the Christ to Himself, then who’s left to make the sacrifice?  Only the Christ.

The Christ had to make the required sacrifice.  Not the earthly powers.  Not God.  The Christ had to voluntarily suffer extraordinary torment and then voluntarily die under painful and humiliating circumstances in order to provide a basis for each man’s salvation.

Obedience vs. Choice

Some believe the Christ did not approach his death “voluntarily”.  As evidenced in his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, “not my will but thy will be done,” the Christ did not want to go through all the suffering that he knew was coming.  Nevertheless, the Christ agreed to endure that suffering as an expression of his subservience to God’s will.  God wanted his son to suffer; the son would therefore suffer out of obedience.

But a sacrifice made out of obedience is not voluntary.  If God orders you to make a sacrifice, it’s certainly not “your” sacrifice.  You may be “the sacrifice” (the being that’s being killed) but unless you voluntarily sacrifice yourself, you are not the being that’s making the sacrifice.   An “involuntary sacrifice” is an oxymoron.

So long as the Christ was “just following (God’s) orders,” he wasn’t truly making a sacrifice—at least not to God.

Nevertheless, it’s apparent to me, that the Christ approached his Crucifixion as an act of obedience to God.  (“Not my will, but thy will be done.”)

However, at the moment on the cross when the Christ thought he’d been abandoned by God (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), I suspect that the Christ’s commitment to “just follow orders” (“not my will but thy will”) was ended.  In the Garden of Gethsemane, the Christ had already expressed his intense desire to avoid the torment and painful death of crucifixion.  Once the Christ believed that he’d been abandoned by God, wouldn’t that abandonment terminate the Christ’s obligation to obediently remain on the cross?

If it’s true that the Christ had the power to escape the cross or that Satan would’ve gladly released him if asked to do so, why didn’t the Christ escape his torment once he believed that God had abandoned him?

Answer:  Because, even without hope of reward or salvation (“why have you forsaken me?”), remaining on the cross was the right thing to do.

Irrespective of God’s will, or Satan’s temptations, or even of the Christ’s own mortal impulse to avoid pain and death, the Christ voluntarily chose to remain on the cross because it was the right thing to do.

When the Christ lamented, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?,” he revealed that he believed he had no hope of reward for remaining on the cross.  He’d been abandoned by the apostles who slept at the Garden of Gethsemane.  He seemed convinced that God had also abandoned him, without cause, on the cross.   He was completely alone, suffering intensely, and without hope of relief, reward or resurrection—and yet he stayed!

For me, this is the central miracle of the Crucifixion.

The Christ had power or opportunity to get off the cross, and yet he stayed.

He voluntarily chose to do the right thing, at great cost to himself and—feeling “forsaken”—without hope of reward.  In doing so, he made a true and perfect sacrifice.  The Christ sacrificed his own life of his own volition to God as an expression of love for the God who had seemingly “forsaken” him, and in order to provide an opportunity for the people of the world (who were to greater or lesser degree responsible for his crucifixion) to find salvation.

Once the Christ, of his own volition, voluntarily sacrificed his life to God without hope of reward, the debt incurred by Adam was truly paid.

Without any supporting evidence, I believe that it was at that point that God said (figuratively), That’s my boy! . . . THAT’S MY BOY! . . . Bring my son unto me and he will sit at my right hand!”

And God allowed death to end the Christ’s suffering.

I certainly can’t prove it, but I doubt that the Christ fully understood the crucifixion process until after he’d died.  I suspect that the crucifixion wasn’t merely a sacrifice; it was a test to discover if the Christ was fit to sit at God’s right hand and to discover if any mortal man was worthy of salvation.

•  It’s one thing to obey God when He has a gun pointed at your head.

It’s another thing to obey God when the promise of reward is huge. (“Look kid, you hang on the cross for a couple hours; I’ll make sure you don’t feel a thing; but y’ moan, y’ groan and put on show for the yokels.  If you agree, I’ll fake your death, get you the best plastic surgeon money can buy, and then you’ll get to rule the world!  And—as an added bonus, I’ll even throw in eternal life!  Whadya say, kid?” . . . .  Well, what could anyone say besides, “Such a deal.”)

It’s another thing entirely to choose to do “right” when God seems absent or even appears to have abandoned you.  When the Christ (or you or me) is prepared to do that which is right without hope of reward, and while suffering huge personal loss, that’s evidence of a love of righteousness that makes doing the same act out of fear or greed look silly, trivial and absurd.

•  I can’t imagine that God is seeking a few, good slaves who will “just follow orders”.  I believe that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym seeks men and women who, in an almost mystical manner, come to love righteousness without fear or hope or reward.  They love righteousness for righteousness’ sake.

The fear of God may be the beginning of wisdom, but it’s not necessarily the end.  Perhaps, the “end” of wisdom may be the love of God.

But I doubt that God is so vain that He seeks to surround Himself with a bunch of “yes men” who “love” Him.  Instead, based on my reading of the Crucifixion, I suspect that the end of wisdom is not even to “love God” but rather to “love that which is right”—righteousness—even when such love generates no hope of reward.  To the extent that I am capable of truly loving “righteousness,” I may become less of a servant to God and more of a “friend” worthy of salvation.

• I strongly suspect that the object of the Crucifixion was to torment and drive the Christ (who was at least partially mortal) to the point where he felt abandoned and alone.  In that desperate condition, the Christ might be reduced from the status of one who merely obeys God as a kind of “yes man,” to the status of one who can freely and voluntarily choose between 1) doing right without hope of reward; or, 2) choosing to do wrong in order to avoid much personal suffering.  If so, the object of the Crucifixion was to discover if any man (or “Son of man”) was capable of voluntarily choosing to pay an extraordinary price in order to do that which is right.

•  As an aside, I’m reminded of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah:

“And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”  Genesis 18:26

Abraham bargained the LORD down to just ten righteous men.  If just ten righteous men could be found in Sodom, God would not destroy Sodom.  Ten could not be found.  Sodom was destroyed.

So I wonder if the Crucifixion paralleled the story of Sodom.  Was God so sick of wicked people that he determined to destroy mankind unless just one truly righteous man could be found?  And, if so, was that man’s “righteousness” tested on the cross?

I don’t know.  But I wonder.

•  The Christ demonstrated in the last moments of his earthly life that he loved the “right” more than he loved his own life.  The Christ loved that which was “right” even if God was not there to enforce that “right”.

And that, I suspect, may be what God is really looking for in you and me:  a personal determination to do right out of love for that righteousness rather than fearful obedience or even love of God, himself.

• Wikipedia describes the “four major milestones” in the Christ’s earthly life as his Baptism, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.  They may right.

But for me, the quintessential moment in the New Testament occurred in the midst of the Crucifixion when the Christ cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

At that moment, I believe the Christ lost hope of personal reward or even salvation, but still believed that by his death, others might one day be saved.  Therefore, determined to do righteousness, even at the cost of his own life and believing he’d been forsaken and would not be saved or rewarded, the Christ still chose to stay on the cross.  I doubt that in the midst of his passion, he truly understood that his sacrifice was thereby made perfect by his decision to do right without hope of reward.

It was at this moment of decision and evidence of his determination to do right without hope of reward that the “Son of man” proved himself (and you, and even me) to be worthy of salvation to the God of the Bible.

If you believed you were damned to Hell and had no hope of salvation, would you celebrate and embrace all the wicked temptations of this life?  Or would you nevertheless choose to do that which is right?

If—believing you were damned and without hope of reward or salvation—you would still choose to live a righteous life, then you may be exactly the kind of man or woman that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym seeks.

•  Finally, if the Bible is true and there are scores or even hundreds of verses that indicate that the Christ is not God and few if any verses (to my knowledge) that absolutely indicates that Christ is God, I am left to wonder about the motives of those who teach that the Christ is God or even was “God incarnate”.

For me, the idea that the Christ is God is so wrong and so unsupportable, that I can’t believe this idea is a mere mistake.  This idea appears to be a lie.  The father of all lies is Satan.

I always stand to be corrected.  But until I am, I will presume that those who believe that the Christ is God or a “persona” of God may be walking a very dangerous and potentially self-destructive path.

 
323 Comments

Posted by on October 22, 2012 in Belief, Bible, Values

 

Tags: , ,

323 responses to “And Yet He Stayed . . . .

  1. Rich

    October 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

    1) The Bible is true.
    2) Jesus Christ was a man, but also God, though not the Father.
    3) You may be over-thinking it. Your left hand is separate from your right, though they are still connected to the same body so in a way they are one. They are both present at the same time. They have a specific role to play. If Jesus Christ was not God or of God, then he would not have been a perfect sacrifice nor would he have resurrected and ascended.

    “The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

    If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? So Jesus is either a great lying con, insane, or really what he said he was.

    ““Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” The ONLY other time “I am” is used is in reference to God (Father). They understood that so that is why they wanted to stone him right at that point.

    I am not saying there are three gods. There is only One. The trinity isn’t an easy concept for us to grasp. There is a reason why Jesus (Christ) had to be a man. This doesn’t mean that Christ only existed for that small period of time. Only the earthly body as man (Jesus) did. That is another issue/concept that most people miss. And I think that is where you made your error in assumption.

    Happy research to you anyway…

     
    • todreigus

      November 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM

      this is only directed towards the thread subject;

      Timothy 2:5-6
      5) For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6) who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

       
  2. Rich

    October 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

    Also, God created all and can do all so I wouldn’t even worry so much because God can make himself as a man if he wanted to. Who among us can say that He couldn’t? Don’t miss the point of WHY He does what He does. His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways not our ways.

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 3:10 PM

      Rich,
      Clear as crystal. Your explanation explains it ALL. Which “God” are you speaking of? There is one God who is Supreme above ALL & there is another “God” who is next, one notch down.. Christ said: “My Father is superior/greater than I am.”

       
      • dejure

        July 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM

        Add to that Don, Jesus made clear there were many gods, but only one true God. Add to that, look at a King James and compare it to the the earlier writings. God’s name was removed and replaced with “God” a few thousand times. Where it talks of other gods, lower case is used.

         
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM

      The “God” you refer to is not the author of confusion either. It really appears that Alfred is being strongly influenced in this particular by “the author of confusion.:PLEASE Pray for him, Alfred.

       
      • Adask

        October 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM

        I agree that the God I refer to is not the author of confusion. Therefore, I read the prayers of the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and his plea while on the cross in the simplest most direct, and least confusing manner I’m able to understand. Those texts are clear: The Christ is praying to God. The Christ clearly indicates that he is not that God.

        The “confusion,” if any, appears to emanate from those whose beliefs compel them to read the text describing those events in way that is contrary to simple and obvious meaning of the text. It seems to me that a typical 6th grade student can read “My God, my God why have YOU forsaken ME?” without confusion. Ask the 6th grader if the speaker (the Christ) deemed God to be someone other than himself. It’s only when you get older (and possibly wiser, but maybe not) that the obvious meaning of the Christ’s plea is deemed to mean something other than what the words clearly say.

        If I say, “My President, my President, why have you forsaken me?,” who would read that sentence and argue that I must the President? If I say, “Donald Trump, Donald Trump, why have you forsaken me?,” who would read that sentence and suppose that I am “The Donald”? The meanings of those sentences seems clear and unconfusing. So why would anyone think that when the Christ says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?,” that the Christ thought he was God? For me, if there’s confusion to be found, it’s in a reading of that sentence that reaches the conclusion that the Christ and God are the same being.

        As for praying for me, please do. I welcome and appreciate all prayers on my behalf. I, myself, pray regularly for “correction”. If any of your prayers can help provide that “correction,” I will thank you.

         
      • deb

        November 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM

        Hi Adask

        I enjoy reading your blog!

        @For me, if there’s confusion to be found, it’s in a reading of that sentence that reaches the conclusion that the Christ and God are the same being.– 1 John 5:1-12 KJV seems to be the best translation I think.

        1John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. The word begat=give life to: and life is in the blood. The blood Yeshua had as incarnate 2nd Adam/man through the immaculate virgin conception is Jehova’s blood. He did not have Adam’s or Mary’s blood. That’s why He is both man and “God”=God the Father/God the Son relationship. As a man He was subjected to the same things we are here on earth both physically and spiritually. He knew that upon death the blood separates from the water in the body=that’s the significance of the spearing in His side on the cross.–when blood and water spill it means life has departed. When the blood separated from the water=God the Father separating from God the Son. In essence God died. That is why Messiah’s blood is so important in salvation.

        6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
        7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
        8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
        9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
        10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
        11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
        12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
        This is how I understand it based on medical analysis.

         
  3. Harry

    October 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

    You are right, it is long winded :-) As a child growing up I could never understand the trinity and felt the conflict. I have since learned that it was a doctrine created by Constantine to avoid charges of heresy.(325 A.D.) Scripture is VERY clear that Jesus presented Himself with a personality separate from the Father. (separate being) Jesus is a creator Son. Through Him All things were made, this universe and everything in it. Hebrews (author unknown) seals the truth of separate personalities and that Jesus is “A” God. I know this leaps in to polytheism yet either the Bible is true or it is not.

    Hebrews 1:8
    But about the Son he says,
    “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
    a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

    Hebrews 1:9
    You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
    therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
    by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

    Therefore based upon scripture when Jesus says “I and the Father are one” my perception is not “one and the same” rather “at one with another,” Jesus had/has a connection with the Father in His perfection that as a imperfect mortal I dearly strive for and can not completely understand. The Holy Spirit as far as I have seen seems to be presented as an instrument rather than possessing a personality. If this is the trinity concept the so be it.

    John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    Who was Jesus on Earth that we are called to emulate…
    1. A revelation of the Father to His children. (seeing the Father through Him)
    2. Set an example of a life lived in obedience to the Fathers will,
    3. Constantly in to action.
    4. His thoughts were on the needs of others not on Himself.

    1 Peter 4:10 Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.

    2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

    2 Thessalonians 1:5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.

    Matthew 25:23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!

    Live in Faith (Hebrews 11) and Love submitting your will to the Father looking for the opportunities to use the gifts the Father has given you to serve others.
    God Bless.

     
    • sem

      October 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM

      Moses was aloud by Almighty GOD (upon Moses’ request) to see HIS leaving.

      Almighty GOD said, “…it is not good that man is alone.”. Almighty GOD then made a companion meet for the man; and Adam called her Woman.

       
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

        Re:Moses was aloud

        How “loud” was he?

         
      • sem

        October 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM

        So loud that the Jews begged HIM not to speak any more. (HE ‘allowed’ that request as well).

         
      • Don

        October 24, 2012 at 11:56 PM

        Re:So loud that the Jews begged HIM not to speak any more. (HE ‘allowed’ that request as well).

        Only the Jews?? Why did the other 11 Tribes remain silent? Maybe they didn’t or were not aloud aka allowed to.

         
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM

        Very clever!

        Now that I know you know, I say ‘the children of Israel (the Man)’ at or about the Exoddus.

         
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM

      Harry, did you receive a reply from Alfred re: your truthful message on/of October 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM ? I doubt it. I wish I knew why,for sure. I think I know why, but I’m not positive. He doesn’t seem to respond,at least so far,to the very FEW messages that make sense & have the answers to where he is in error about this “ONE GOD” belief, but he gets long winded about some other messages that I’m baffled as to why he responds to those “other messages” in the first place.

       
      • Adask

        October 23, 2012 at 5:42 PM

        I don’t even see most of the comments on the blog. I’d guess that WordPress notifies me of somewhere between 10% and 20% of the comments made by others. I’m already working too many hours to get involved with every comment that comes in the door.

         
    • deb

      November 3, 2012 at 11:37 PM

      Hi Harry,

      @Therefore based upon scripture when Jesus says “I and the Father are one” my perception is not “one and the same” rather “at one with another,” Jesus had/has a connection with the Father in His perfection that as a imperfect mortal I dearly strive for and can not completely understand. The Holy Spirit as far as I have seen seems to be presented as an instrument rather than possessing a personality. If this is the trinity concept the so be it. — The trinity is not a concept, they are One.

      The Father and the Son are One. It has to do with the Blood. I mentioned it to Adask in reply to his earlier post.

      The Holy Spirit also the Comforter, is not an instrument but “God’s Spirit” and is being referred to as He. John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
      John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
      John 16:13, 1John 2:27

      1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

      We don’t know all things yet, because now we see through a glass darkly as Paul said. And the apostates wolves in sheep’s clothing are fleecing the flock from their pull-pits.

       
      • Don

        November 4, 2012 at 12:56 AM

        @ “We don’t know all things yet, because now we see through a glass darkly as Paul said”

        We don’t know ALL things yet?? This IS understandable,but from most of the comments hardly ANYTHING is KNOWN YET

         
      • dejure

        July 7, 2014 at 2:04 PM

        If you’ve seen MY son, you’ve seen me (dejure). We look alike, and he has my mannerisms and traits. Had he been raised by another man, he would still look like me, but would be an entirely different person than he is. However, some things just seem to come of the family line too.

         
      • Eric Christenson

        January 8, 2015 at 12:52 AM

        Alfred says, I believe He provides the energy that causes trees to grow, stars to shine and galaxies to spin.

        Astute observation. ENERGY begets energy. I have believed for many years that there exists an

        “intelligent Energy” that is impossble to explain yet nevertheless exists. The word, God, itself is the

        major cause of confusion. Yahshua/Yeshua asked Peter, 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of

        Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14

        And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one

        of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered

        and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him,

        Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

        for flesh and blood hath not REVEALED it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

        We get revealings FROM MEN, but we also get REVEALINGS from our Heavenly Father.

        deb uses 1st John 5:7-8 as proof of the Trinity in her message on November 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM.

        HOWEVER, what follows presents a BIG PROBLEM for deb, et.al.

        There is only one small passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible that is generally used by

        Trinity adherents to support the Trinity doctrine. This passage is found in I John 5:7-8, and is

        bracketed in the following quotation: “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the

        Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth],

        the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The bracketed words were

        added by editors to the Latin Vulgate translation probably in the early fourth century. They do not

        appear in any of the older Greek manuscripts nor in other modern English translation. They were

        added to the Latin Vulgate during the heat of the controversy between Rome and Dr. Arius and

        God’s people.

        Bible commentaries explain that these words were never written in the apostle John’s manuscript or

        any existing early copies of it. The apostle John in his three epistles and the Revelation speaks

        of “the Father, and… Son” (I John 1:3), but never of “the Father and the Word,” except in this

        uninspired part of I John 5:7-8.

        There was a real reason why the arch deceiver Satan wanted that spurious verse added in the Latin

        Vulgate from which it crept into the Authorized Version. The Trinity doctrine completely does away

        with the gospel of Jesus Christ. His gospel is the MESSAGE he brought mankind from God the

        Father, the good news of the coming KINGDOM OF GOD! That is the ONE thing above all Satan wants to defeat.

         
  4. Don

    October 22, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    And “God” said,let US make man in OUR image. And, No man has seen “God” at any time. Then who did Moses see? Did you ever wonder why “God” did not make “Eve” in the same “manner” as “God” made Adam? “God” made Adam from the “dust” & “God” made Eve starting “with/from” Adam, See Genesis:1: 21-23. This should give you a clue about the “other God.”

     
    • NDT

      October 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM

      “No man has seen “God” at any time” is a mistranslation of Exodus 33. Moses was talking about the honour/abundance of his deity, not the physical appearance that he had already seen.

       
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 3:56 PM

        @“No man has seen “God” at any time” is a mistranslation of Exodus 33.

        Not true. No man has seen “God the Father” at any time. The being who emptied himself of all his glory & became The Christ was was the one Moses saw. Christ is the one who made this Earth & the Moon & the Universe, BEFORE he became flesh & blood. If you disagree, I am not going to prove it to you. Christ will prove it & BEFORE LONG.

         
      • NDT

        October 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

        NDT: No man has seen “God” at any time” is a mistranslation of Exodus 33.

        Don: Not true.

        It is true because Moses was referring to the kabowd of his deity, not his physical form.

        And he [Moses] said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
        Exodus 33:18

        kabowd

        1) glory, honour, glorious, abundance
        a) abundance, riches
        b) honour, splendour, glory
        c) honour, dignity
        d) honour, reputation
        e) honour, reverence, glory
        f) glory

         
    • NDT

      October 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM

      “No man has seen “God the Father” at any time”

      http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not

      # (Gen. 17:1) – “Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless;
      # (Gen. 18:1) Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.”
      # (Exodus 6:2-3) – “God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD; 3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.”
      # (Exodus 24:9-11) – “Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.”
      # (Num. 12:6-8) – “He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. 7″Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?”

       
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 6:12 PM

        KABOWD of WHAT??

        I know you will say you don’t need one but try it anyway, If you say try what anyway, the answer is “Strong’s Concordance.”

        The Christ existed BEFORE he emptied himself of his “glorious position” & voluntarily became Flesh.

        Genesis 12:7, Genesis 32:30, Exodus 24:10, Exodus 33:11, Judges 13:22 Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16

        And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

        And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

        And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

        And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM

        Hi NDT

        No one has seen God.
        Exodus 33:20–“But He said, you cannot see my face for no one may see me and live” v. 23..”and you will see my back, but my face must not be seen.
        John 1:18
        1 Timothy 6:16

         
      • NDT

        November 4, 2012 at 12:33 AM

        @Deb:

        “No one has seen God”

        Please see my posts of
        October 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM (ambiguity of “God”)
        October 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM (was seen)
        October 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM (kabowd not seen)

         
    • deb

      November 4, 2012 at 12:02 AM

      Hi Don
      @Then who did Moses see?–A burning bush–A consuming Fire.

       
      • Don

        November 4, 2012 at 1:12 AM

        @Then who did Moses see?–A burning bush–A consuming Fire.

        He saw the SAME “I AM” as written in what is commonly called the “old testament” which was & IS the SAME “I AM” as written in the new testament. The I AM in the old testament was the Spirit being who became a flesh & blood being as showing in the new testament One time when he,Yeshua was asked who he really was he answered: I AM. Do you want the Book, Verse & Chapter ?? When HE,Yeshua said, I AM, “they, his enemies picked up stones to throw at him. Want the Book, Verse & Chapter??

         
      • Don

        November 4, 2012 at 1:20 AM

        Best of minds & total ignorance. I shake my head in disbelief.

         
      • Don

        November 4, 2012 at 1:44 AM

        John 8

        57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

        58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

        59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

        There it is for ALL of you. Chew on that a while. This is only about the FIFTH time it’s been posted. So it’s proof that most of you good folks are either blind or it’s just not your cup of tea. It just doesn’t fit the mould does it? yes, if the glove don’t fit you must aquit. How well I know.

         
      • NDT

        November 4, 2012 at 2:08 AM

        Exodus 3 illustrates the nature of Elohim. The identities vary with context.

         
  5. Sapone

    October 22, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    Jesus is an authorized representative for God. (Credentials can be supplied upon request.)

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM

      Adam was a being & Eve was another being,TWO beings,but they were ONE also..”..& they shall become ONE flesh.

       
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 12:01 AM

        “Becoming ONE flesh” speaks to reproduction of a new born.

        Scientifically; fifty percent of a mans’ chromosomes and fifty percent of a females chromosomes upon the ‘marriage’ of a male and a female and the resulting ‘conception’ produces “ONE” (other) Flesh.

         
      • Don

        October 25, 2012 at 1:08 AM

        Adam was a being & Eve was another being,TWO beings,but they were ONE also..”..& they shall become ONE flesh. Genesis 2:24

        sem says:”Becoming ONE flesh” speaks to reproduction of a new born.”

        What Book,Chapter & verse of Scripture is your comment above taken from? I believe it is just another one of your superior intellectual capacity thoughts.

        Prove me wrong by saying what Book,Chapter & verse of Scripture says this: “Becoming ONE flesh” speaks to reproduction of a new born.”

         
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM

        I have nothing to prove. It is there…for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

         
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 5:18 PM

        Nay; I shall elaborate:

        Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, whence…’after his own kind’. The developement of the individual retraces the evolution of his kind. Hence, “Be Ye FRUITFUL and Multiply.”

         
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

      Sapone
      @(Credentials can be supplied upon request.)
      I will ask you for the credentials because I don’t think anyone else will. So if you post them,possibly someone else will “see” them who would not otherwise ask. But if your “credentials” do not fit into their way of “seeing” things I’m sure you will hear about it. Personally, I am only interested in what the Holy Scriptures say. I do not “interpret” the Bible. The Bible interprets itself.

       
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

      Jesus is an authorized representative for God. (Credentials can be supplied upon request.)

      Apparently requesting Jesus is an authorized representative for God. (Credentials can be supplied upon request.) is not good enough for the credentials to be supplied. I have requested that you supply them & in all honesty, I don’t know what or how to properly ask for them for you to understand what I’m asking forso I guess they will never be “supplied.” you’re not aka sem are you?

       
  6. iamfreeru2Michael

    October 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM

    Read the book of John:

    1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Not “A” God)

    1:14 “And the Word (Yeshua) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    Either you believe the scriptures or you do not.

     
    • Mr. Lee

      October 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM

      To: Michael
      wheres the forum dude, you need to bring it back online, hope your feeling better.

       
      • Michael

        October 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

        Send me an email. I lost your contact info.

         
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 4:35 PM

      To: iamfreeru2Michael

      Your message of October 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM makes so much sense that only one or two readers,commentators,etc will respond to you or even take into consideration what you said. WHY? Because it is to plain. It has to be complicated before they will respond because the want to show how smart they are. They do not want to be confused with the FACTS.

      Thank you for your on point & truthful message

       
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM

      Re: “…..as of the only begotten from the Father, ……”

      FROM the Father !!! The “begotten” was not the Father. The begotten was FROM the Father.Two seperate beings. The “begotten is one being. The Father is another being.

       
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM

      iamfreeru2Michael

      Are you saying he was with himself? Is the reason he was here, because he was not all there?

       
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM

      iamfreeru2Michael
      October 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM
      Re: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Not “A” God)

      It seems it is the word “God” that has people baffled as they “see “God” as a single entity. If this was/is true then it is clear why any rational mind can see all the conflicts, e.g. “praying to himself, saying he is greater than himself, asking why he has forsaken himself,asking himself to renew the glory he once had with himself & on & on. This is irrational. How can you be greater than yourself? NO WAY. How can a creator create something/anything greater than himself? It is impossible and to say with God it is possible is irrational because God is “rational.’ People who use this kind of irrational reasoning are sick,at best. Satan & his cohorts sure have a lot of irrational followers & BELIEVERS. If the glove don’t fit you must aquit (ha).What sayest thou iamfreeru2Michael ???
      And the Elohim (God) said: Let US make man in OUR image. I know myself that there IS a “chain of command” even with the Elohim (God). I see that it is obvious it is just not meant for most people to understand what I do at least at this “time” & this is a merciful blessing from “God” because if “God” allows them to “see” they will be held accountable for seeing, knowing, & discarding the knowledge they were given. “God” will not hold anyone accountable for anything they are in ignorance of unless thay insist on being ignorant and “God” will not hold anyone accountable for anything they just don’t understand. We have a very understanding & merciful “God.” What sayest thou iamfreeru2Michael ???

       
  7. sem

    October 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

    There is only One GOD even as each of us humans are One Man. As ‘One Man’, we each contain a Soul and A Spirit within a Physical body.

    Emmanuel (God with us) appeared as “Light” which entered the Virgin (Mary) and was born in the physical. The significance of the event goes beyond words (we must keep in mind at all times) Man cannot think like GOD; HE has only to aspire…and it is!

    The perspective of said phenomena goes to the episode of GODS command to Abraham that he should slay his (ONLY [as to the PROMISE]) child (Types and Shadows).

    Personally, I would never question the Word of GOD; I simply appreciate the Expression of LOVE, purposed by Almighty GOD.

    PeaceOut

     
    • messianicdruid

      October 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

      The Lord … became my salvation.
      Yah became my shua.
      Jesus came in the name of Yah.
      Yahshua speaks by authority of the Father.

      http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/118-14-compare.html

       
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM

        messianicdruid
        @ Yahshua speaks by authority of the Father.
        This is TRUE.

         
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM

        messianicdruid

        I,as well as,iamfreeru2Michael, I’m sure, believe what you say.There “MIGHT” be one or two others on this blog who might agree. I said MIGHT agree. Why do you think this is? I think I know why but I would appreciate your thoughts as to why hardly anyone on this blog can grasp this simple and wonderful truth.

        Thank you for your truthful message.

         
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 3:23 AM

      sem
      Your comment/message of/on October 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

      Now this IS good. It’s even better than that !! Please !! Keep up the “good” work !!

       
    • dejure

      July 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

      Don’t forget, Jesus said there are many “gods,” but only one true “God.” Satan was a god, but he was not God. Capitalization is everything in the Bible. Where God’s name was removed some thousands of times and replaced with the [capitalized] word God.

       
      • EarlatOregon

        July 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM

        The Bible tells us
        God created people.

        Government school books,
        tell
        Humans evolved from Apes.

        if they want to tell me,
        their Relatives,
        did Strange things with Monkeys,
        who am I to disagree?

        My Relatives were created by God.

         
  8. NDT

    October 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

    The word “God” is ambiguous, and is a translation of both singular and plural Hebrew words for divine beings. The issue is complicated by the doctrine of monotheism which arose during the Babylonian exile. If monotheism is real then the first commandment of Exodus 20 is meaningless. The Christian interpretation of Stephen’s vision within the context of monotheism leads to the absurdity of the trinity.

    “Son of man” is not an exclusive title, the title refers to repentance (Numbers 23:19). The teaching of repentance is marginalized by Pauline Christianity in favour of grace. The last word to the faithful was to the followers in Asia (Rev 1:4), not the Christians in Rome/Babylon. The early followers were led by James the Just according to Judaic law, there is evidence of conflict between James and the “vain man” (James 2:20, Acts 15:19-21, Galatians 2:10-11)

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM

      NDT
      @ “The word “God” is ambiguous,…”
      You say that the word “God” is “ambiguous.” For YOU & most other people it is ambiguous, Not for me. The Hebrew word for “God” is: Elohim. The Elohim said “Let US make man in OUR image.” Us & our” are plural, not singular. I suppose it’s impossible to see the truth when we hold on & believe an untruth for so long. It’s just a part of “human nature.” Also, this is why we have vanilla, chocolate,strawberry & many other flavors. This is why we have so many conflicting abominations of churches. EXCUSE me !! I meant to say “denominations” not abominations. Actually, Demon-ations is more accurate.

       
      • NDT

        October 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

        It is ambiguous because it is a translation of Elohim (plural) and of Elohykm (singular). Elohykm is always used in reference to YHWH (eg Leviticus 18:30). Further ambiguity exists because it is also the name of a pan-semitic deity of fortune (eg Isaiah 65:11, Strongs H1409)

         
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM

        NDT
        Re: It is ambiguous…. & Further ambiguity exists.

        Then according to you, it is not meant for anyone to understand. What a waste of time & energy for the Scriptures to be given to us then. Also, if it’s so “ambiguous” how do you know so much about it? ONCE AGAIN. The ‘God” that The Christ called the “Father” IS the “God” that no man has seen. Where did you go to “Sunday School?” I went to “Saturday” School,SABBATH School. & you will say:YEAH, that’s the & your problem.

         
      • NDT

        October 22, 2012 at 9:55 PM

        “Then according to you, it is not meant for anyone to understand. ”

        No, you can’t understand when you value your beliefs more than the truth. Ambiguous does not mean incomprehensible.

        “The ‘God” that The Christ called the “Father” IS the “God” that no man has seen.”

        What is the difference between that ‘God’ and an idol of the heart?

         
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM

      NDDT
      You ask: What is the difference between that ‘God’ and an idol of the heart?
      One is the “Giver” & the idol of the heart is the TAKER, something lusted for/after. LUST !!

       
  9. jose-antonio

    October 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM

    Alfred, YHWH blessed. It was long, but spot on. I have often asked the question, How can G-d sit at His own right hand? If Messiah was/is a not a man but some “god” then that whole drama was what, some kind of “theatrical” farce? A play, a magical slight of hand?
    shalom, brother.

     
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 6:09 PM

      Re: “It was long, but spot on.”

      Yes, there were many “spots” on the long winded superior in wisdom & knowledge message. It certainly was not SHORT in that regard but it was FAR short of SOME true knowledge & wisdom. It was a mixture of truth & error which is confusion. I have read(red) a FEW comments that show the truth where he,Alfred, was in error, but I don’t see ANY responses to those truthful messages, & some of the truthful messages were very SHORT.

       
  10. Anon4fun

    October 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

    A few citations in support, repeating some in the article:

    1. Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

    If only God is good, and Jesus is (or was, at the time) not good, then Jesus is not God.

    2. Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

    Jesus and his Father have different wills.

    3. Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    God does not have a God. Nor does God forsake himself or appear to himself to forsake himself.

    4. John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

    Jesus heard the truth from God. This was not God talking to himself.

    5. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

    Here again, it does not make sense to think “my God” is Jesus referring to himself as his own God.

    6. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

    The mediator between man and God is obviously not God. A mediator between two parties cannot be either of the two parties.

    – – –

    As I understand it, original sin corrupted God’s perfect creation in his own image, namely Adam, causing an indebtedness to God by man (the heirs of the corrupter) which was only payable through the sacrifice of another perfect man. The only such man available after the fall was the Son of God. It was the will of God that the Son be sacrificed to pay this debt incurred by man, so that man’s relationship with God could be restored. Jesus accepted this task and rejected the world (which, as the Son of God, he could have subdued as its earthly king; see Matthew 4:8-9), thus providing our salvation.

    NDT wrote: >>The word “God” is ambiguous, and is a translation of both singular and plural Hebrew words for divine beings.<<

    "Elohiym" is plural because it includes angels. Sometimes it also includes judges and mighty men, these two types being referred to as "gods" in those days. There is no implication of God himself as plural.

     
    • NDT

      October 22, 2012 at 6:24 PM

      “As I understand it, original sin corrupted God’s perfect creation”

      That’s Pauline doctrine. The introduction of blood sacrifice resulted in a “horror of great darkness” (Genesis 15:12).

      For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
      Hosea 6:6 (Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7)

      The Hebrew word for angel means messenger. The Hebrew word Elohim is unusual in that although it is plural, it is usually used in a singular sense.

      Because of the ambiguity, your statement about “God” is absurd within the context of Genesis 1:26.

       
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 11:59 PM

        YOU NDDT SAY “Christians typically assume that the title of “Satan” refers to a particular being, but that isn’t true, it is just a reference to an adversary”

        SATAN MEANS ADVERSARY !! Look !! Find someone else you can con into believing like you do. It ain’t gonna work with me. So slither away. If others don’t have the sense to check out the scriptures you refer to & your interpretation of them & if they want to believe you that’s their problem. Some Scriptures do mean what you say they do & some do not,

         
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM

      Anon4fun,NDT & “others” of like mind

      John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word/spokesman (aka The Christ), and the Word was with God … ( iamfreeru2Michael understands this & I think messianicdruid does too).

      … In the beginning the Word (Word, here IS The “God” who LATER became The Christ) & he already existed. The Word was with God,(Today he is seated on the “right side/hand of “God” the Father), and the Word was God. … In the beginning the Word already existed. “God” IS a FAMILY !!! …

      Anon4fun,NDT & “others” of like mind

      YOU are ALSO “gods.” Don’t any of you understand YET that the word “God” is nothing more or less than a “TITLE”

      I, Don, am saying to ALL of you that YOU are also gods,i.e. according to the Holy Scriptures.

      Get ALL the scriptures on the subject & IF your heart is right with “God” the lights should come on. Don’t just pick & choose the ones that fit in with your present understanding !! Even SATAN TRIED to use verbatin, Scriptures to “trip up” The Christ. But Christ said to Satan, It is ALSO written & he told Satan WHAT was “ALSO written” if for nothing else to let Satan know his sneaky CONniving scheme was not gonna work. If YOU are a god,AND YOU ARE, why is it so far fetched that Christ is not a “god”??

       
      • NDT

        October 22, 2012 at 8:14 PM

        Rome held that their emperor was a “god”, yet in the gospel’s tribute passage he wasn’t recognized as such. Ezekiel 14 talks about the idols of the heart. The false belief that someone was a “god”, and acting on that belief would be an example of such idolatory.

        Roman philosophy originates with Babylon, which originated with Nimrod, who promoted idolatory. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.

        This isn’t to say that it is impossible for man to achieve divinity, only that it’s possible to be mistaken about it.

         
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM

        Satan is also a “god” He is the “god” of this present evil world.

        2 Corinthians 4:4
        “… Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. …

        John 10:34 “… Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? ”

        Psalm 82:6, “I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High. … ”

        The above are 3 scriptural witnesses.

         
      • NDT

        October 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

        “Satan is also a “god” He is the “god” of this present evil world.”

        That’s along the lines of what the Gnostics taught. Paul also taught of conflict between flesh and spirit, just as the Gnostics did.

        Christians typically assume that the title of “Satan” refers to a particular being, but that isn’t true, it is just a reference to an adversary. You have to understand the context to know who is being referred to.

         
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM

      1. Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: (The Father “God”)

      This is another scripture that most people are in error in understanding. It could have been “translated” MUCH better I confess but on the face of, as it is translated, it means,e.g., Michael & Gabriel & the other 5 “arch angels were “bad” It means ALL the heavenly Host were “BAD, not GOOD. PLEASE !! Give me a BREAK !
      Anon4fun this is not to be taken “personally.” I am not asking YOU for a break. You are my mentor.

       
  11. Huey Campbell

    October 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM

    Adask-
    It is OK to try to understand, God made you that way but……….
    see here now don’t you-if God can’t be his own daddy, he an’t God! cause an’t nothing God can’t do!

    Now about that trinity stuff. the spirit is not a separate entity, It -IS- the spirit of God and the “man” part of God too many folks call Jesus.

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      Huey Campbell

      I see Satan came on the scene, here on this thread more so than any other I have seen yet. I did hear a song one time called:I’m my own grandpa.
      There are many things “God” “can’t do,eg, He cannot lie.Want some more cannots?? My source is:

      The Holy Bible.

       
  12. Anon4fun

    October 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    Don:

    Regarding John 1:1, caution is needed with translations. It could also have been “the Word was godlike” in English, which makes more sense anyway since we just read that the Word was “with” God. Being both “with” and “the same as” doesn’t seem to work logically.

    {I, Don, am saying to ALL of you that YOU are also gods, i.e. according to the Holy Scriptures.}

    Experience, if nothing else, has given me reason to doubt that I’m a god, though I will change my mind if scripture says differently. If so, “man or other animals” is easily dealt with using a “man or other gods” argument.

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM

      Anon4fun was blessed with a son, & “named him, Anon4fun JR. Anon4fun was not Anon4fun JR & Anon4fun JR was not Anon4fun. BUT they loved each other & were with each other more often than not. & even when they were not with each other “eyeball to eyeball” they were with each other “mentally.” They were not each other BUT they were a part of each other. This is probably too simple to understand.

       
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 9:03 PM

      Anon4fun & Anon4fun JR are FAMILY. Anon4fun JR is subordinate to Anon4fun. Anon4fun is the “Father”. Anon4fun JR is the son

      “God” IS a FAMILY !!! … The Elohim ARE a family.

      Also if you are going to pick & choose what scriptures you will dicard because they do not fit in with your way of thinking, then you are no different than 99 &99/100% of most people. Then again, that is why we have vanilla,chocolate,strawberry,peach,raspberry,etc. That’s wonderful for ice cream but it doesn’t “jive” with the truth of the meaning of the scriptures. There are scriptures that I do not understand but I will say that up front. I certainly will not give my opinion about something I do not understand. & who would want it anyway? Typo time.

       
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      Re: “caution is needed with translations.”
      The only way the scriptures can be understood is IF “God” is calling us. Everybody has a “time” I honestly want to know the truth. I have asked “God” to let/allow me to “see it” the way he/they see it.

       
  13. Mr. Lee

    October 22, 2012 at 8:25 PM

    Dear Adask, your blog is important to me as a student, teachers are important so students can learn. If Jesus Christ “YeShua ha Mashiach” is not God, we might as well go back ta drinkin and smokin party it up, rob, steal, and join the NWO, because, “The Christ” being God is the whole point. By the way your perspective is very similar to the Muslim belief.

    My opinion is we won’t fully understand the trinity with logic. If and when we get to heaven the first class will be “Trinity 101” 5 trillion year introduction class.

    I see it like this: 1 GOD= YHWY always exists in the function of Father, Christ always exists in the function of Savior and Son, Holy Spirit always exists in the function of Comforter. Figure this out with physics and you’ll be rich and famous. Quantum physics might prove this however.

    Colossians 2:9-10 (New King James Version)
    9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

    Man made in God’s image is a 3= a spirit( which lives forever), a soul (conscious mind) and a body(sub-conscious mind, hungry and lustful flesh).

    The flesh of Christ died and sweat blood and was anxious.

    Remember His blood, not the blood from Adam because The Christ had no fleshly father, our sins are translated thru our blood from our fathers. His blood was perfect and had to be shed (voluntarily) for us to be saved.

    John 8:1
    King James Version
    58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

    By Faith We Understand
    Hebrews 11:1 (NKJV)
    11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Keep up the research, pray and fight, you might have to study Greek and Hebrew to find the right WORDS. Don’t fall into the situation that Job fell into:

    <>
    New American Standard Bible
    God Speaks Now to Job

    1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

    2“Who is this that darkens counsel
    By words without knowledge?

    3“Now gird up your loins like a man,
    And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

    4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell Me, if you have understanding

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 8:38 PM

      Shalom, Mr Lee
      Re: 2“Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

      One answer seems to be, most of the readers & commentators on this blog. Then again IF You & I were born in Russia, the chances are good that we would think like Russians. Please don’t misunderstand, I am with you 100% on the scriptures you quoted.

       
      • Mr. Lee

        October 22, 2012 at 9:53 PM

        My point was, this was “God’s” response to Job when he questioned God. I think it’s important to bring this discussion up, and it’s perfectly ok to question God, however, ultimately some things we will never understand fully this side of eternity. I certainly don’t think Adask darkens counsel to be clear. I certainly do think Christ is GOD. To be clear.

        P.S. I’ve challenged God and questioned Him, and been gracefully and sternly corrected by Him as well. (aka smack-down)

         
      • Don

        October 22, 2012 at 10:42 PM

        Mr Lee
        And my point was & IS as follows: When using scriptures to get the apparently blind to see that Yahshua (Jesus) was “God” also, just as The “one” above him aka the “Father” was “God” & they,e.g.,some commentators want to IGNORE the scriptures that doesn’t fit in with their already made up minds that “The Christ” was not ONE of the “Godhead.”

        I said to you, Mr. Lee,Please don’t misunderstand, I am with you 100% on the scriptures you quoted.

        Apparently,you did misunderstand my point by your answer. I am VERY familiar with Job’s trials. In fact my life itself has been a “modern day Job Story.” AND, I don’t think I am alone in that matter.

         
    • Adask

      October 23, 2012 at 1:47 AM

      First, I don’t claim to know for an absolute fact who/what the Christ is. I said as much in the article.

      But I did point out that there are verses in the Bible wherein even the Christ admits that he is not God. For example, when the Christ is praying to God in the Garden of Gethsemane he is clearly praying to someone other than himself. When he pleads on the cross, “My God, my God, why have YOU forsaken ME” he is clearly recognizing that that his “God” is someone other than himself. (And incidentally, we have at least three witnesses to each of those incidents. “Out of the mouth of two or three shall a thing be established,” right?)

      That’s why I repeatedly used the line “if the Bible is true” as a premise for my conclusion that the Christ is not God.

      But if it turns out that the Christ is God, then significant portions of the Bible are false.

      And that is the contradiction we face.

      If the Christ is God, then the Christ can never have prayed to God unless we accept that he was praying to himself which seems silly. Every verse that depicts the Christ as praying to God is a lie or at least a deception. If the Christ is God, then he cannot have ever sat “at God’s right hand”. Every verse that depicts the Christ as siting at God’s right hand must be false. If the Christ is God, then significant portions of the Old Testament that prophesied the coming of a Messiah were false insofar as that “Messiah” was someone other than God. If the Christ is God, every verse in the Bible that indicates he is not God is a lie.

      Thus, if the Christ is God, significant portions of the Bible are false, misleading or deceptive. The Bible is not inerrant and, unless God can lie, the Bible is not the “inspired word of God”.

      If anyone can explain to me who the Christ was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane (when he is so anxious that his sweat is pouring off him like “drops of blood”) or while is suffering on the cross (“My God, my God, why have YOU forsaken ME?”) other than God, I may be able to believe “God in three persons”. Are we to believe that in the midst of his Crucifixion, the Christ is putting on an act for the benefit of the yokels? If he’s really just praying to himself as a joke or a deception, then the Crucifixion would seem to be nothing more than a “play” . . . “starring your favorite actor/persona and mine–the Christ!” (Perhaps the Christ was the Brad Pitt of his day; maybe even the Jack Nicholson.)

      But if the crucifixion was merely some sort of “play,” merely a kind of “puppet show” to fool the people, then there was no real death on the cross. There was no real sacrifice made to atone for the debt owed by Adam and his descendants. The debt (if it ever existed) remains unpaid. The whole Crucifixion was then a “cruci-fiction”.

      For me, the episodes in the Garden and on the cross are reminiscent of the old aphorism, “The are no atheists in fox holes”. That means, that when the going gets really tough (as in war), we all pray to God. I believe that the Christ was was so anxious in the Garden and so much in pain on the cross, that he had neither time nor inclination to put on a “show” for the masses. He knew he was on the verge of death. Under those circumstances, it’s virtually impossible to suppose that he was lying by praying to God if he was God.

      To this day, we presume at law that anyone making a “deathbed confession” is telling the truth. I make the same presumption relative to the Bible’s depiction of the Christ’s last moments on the cross. He had to be telling the truth. When he said, “My God, my God, why have YOU (God) forsaken me (the Christ)?,” it is virtually inconceivable that the Christ didn’t know, believe and recognize that he and God were two entirely different beings. Are we to believe that the Christ was lying just moments before his death?

      If the Christ is God, then the verses at Matthew, Mark and Luke that report the Christ’s pleading, “My God, my God, why have YOU forsaken ME?” are false. The depiction of the Christ’s prayer at the Garden is false. Every time the Christ is referred to as the “Son of God,” that’s false. Every time the Christ is referred to as the “son of man,” that’s probably false. Every time the Christ described himself in terms that indicated he was not God, the Christ was lying. And if Christ was God and Christ was lying, that means the Biblical principle that God cannot lie is also false.

      I’m not telling anyone that I know the answer as to the Christ’s identity. I am saying, however, that I know a contradiction when I see one and that the two premises–1) Christ is God; and 2) the Bible is inerrant–can’t both be true. If the Christ is God, significant portions of the Bible must be false. If the Bible is significantly false, on what are we to base the Christian faith?

      You can’t have it both ways. Either Christ is God and the Bible is significantly false–or–the Bible is true and the Christ is not God. Take your pick.

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        Re: “You can’t have it both ways. Either Christ is God and the Bible is significantly false–or–the Bible is true and the Christ is not God. Take your pick.”

        As an EXAMPLE; IF you,have a son,his surname is,Adask,SAME as your surname. There are two beings. Alfred Senior & Alfred Junior.People tell you that, he, Alfred Jr. is the “spitting image of you.” You say,”he,(Alfred Jr.) is my beloved son in whom I am “well pleased,”.

        The Father IS “God” (Adask Senior).Christ IS “God” (Adask Jr)

        Christ IS “God” and the Bible IS true, The “Father” IS “God” and the Bible is true,

        Remember: “…and “God” said: “Let US (plural) make man in OUR (plural) image.”

        I hope this is SHORT enough for you.

         
      • Adask

        October 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM

        The word “our” signifies two or more. It could me three. It could be 33. Thus, the Holy Spirit might also be in the “image” of God. Just as as my son and daughters could be in the “image” of me. But the fact that two or more entities share the same image does not prove that everyone sharing that “image” is God. Genesis 1:26-28 declares that God (or “Gods”) made man in God’s image. You and I are apparently made in God’s image. So are billions of other men and women. How many of those billions who share God’s image are also God(s)?

        Insofar as the Christ was ever in the form of man, the Christ shared God’s image. That doesn’t make him God.

        So far as I know, The Jewish faith is unique in that it was the first religion to sense that the world was created and presided over by a single God. Up until then, the peoples of the world apparently worshiped a pantheon of gods. So far as I know, the Jewish faith was the first monotheistic religion. The Christian and Muslim faiths followed the Jewish lead and are also monotheistic religions. So far as I know, the word “monotheism” describes a faith with a single God. So far as I know, the Jews/Hebrews have had a monotheistic religion for several thousand years. Imagine their surprise when they discover that they actually two, maybe three “Gods”.

        I don’t deny the existence of the Christ or the Holy Spirit. They may have been the beings referred to when it was decided to make man in “our” image. Maybe the beings referred by the “our” were angels. I’m simply saying that if the Bible is true, there is text that clearly indicates that the Christ did not think of himself as God and instead regarded God as a separate, distinct and more powerful being.

        The fact that there was at least one being who shared God’s image that existed before man was created in that same image does not prove that the additional being(s) made in God’s image were God.

        I’m not a Biblical scholar, but I have read that the early Hebrews sometimes used the plural form of a word as a kind of emphasis or highlight. I’ve read that the Hebrew word for “god” in Genesis 1:26-28 was given a special emphasis to distinguish the ONE God of the Bible from the multitude of other “gods” worshiped by other nations (Egypt, for example) and surrounding tribes. I’ve read that therefore, the Hebrew wrote the word “god” in its plural form to indicate the one true God. Using a plural form to signify a single God doesn’t seem to make much sense, but it the context of an ancient language with a relatively limited vocabulary, it’s not impossible. More, it’s conceivable that once the Hebrews wrote “gods” to signify the one and only “God,” they may have also used the word “our” to maintain a consistency with the “gods”–even though they meant “God” and should’ve used “my”.

        More, it’s entirely possible and even likely that the Christ and Holy Spirit can be described as “gods” in that they have spectacular supernatural powers beyond that of any mortal man. Compared to you and me, the Christ and Holy Spirit are “gods”. So is Satan. Angels could easily be described ad “gods” by people of different times and cultures. The English still carry a class of people who are referred to as “Lords”. But compared to you, me, the Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan, and the Duke of Edinburgh, there is only ONE “God” is over ALL others–our Father YHWH ha Elohiym. There is only one, true, singular God at the apogee of all power. Could the Christ be a “god”? Yes. Could he be the God? Not if the Bible’s accounts of the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and plea on the cross are true.

        While I can’t do more than speculate as to what might’ve been meant by the word “Gods” in Genesis. But I’m still waiting for a credible explanation for what was meant when the Christ prayed to God in the Garden and said that “all things are possible for you” (God) and implied that some things are not possible for the Christ. Insofar as the Christ recognized that his powers were inferior to those of God, he implied that he (the Christ) was not the one, true and most powerful “God”. When the Christ pleaded “My God, my God, why have YOU forsaken ME,” how can anyone read those words and deny that the Christ recognized God as a separate being?

        There is some evidence in the Bible to support both positions. Some evidence suggests that the Christ might be God. Other evidence suggests that the Christ was not God. To my mind, the majority of the evidence supports the conclusion that the Christ was not God. But it’s hard to imagine how both sets of evidence can be true.

         
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 10:48 PM

        Adask
        Who,in your understanding, are the “US” in the scripture that says:”God” said let US make man in OUR image?

         
    • Adask

      October 23, 2012 at 2:08 AM

      I disagree that “the Christ being God is the whole point”. As I tried to explain in the article, my understanding of the word “sacrifice” requires two beings. One to make the sacrifice; one to receive the sacrifice.

      A debt was incurred by Adam and mankind in the Garden of Eden. That debt was due to God. If the Christ is God and the Christ’s death paid the debt due God, then God paid Adam’s debt by allowing Himself to be killed. I can understand that God might simply “forgive” Adam’s debt in same sense that the Old Testament had a Jubilee every 50 years to forgive everyone’s debt. If God want’s to simply forgive Adam’s debt, GREAT! But what sense does it make that God would pay Adam’s debt to God by dying on the cross? That’s similar to me putting a gun to my head and blowing my brains out in order to repay the $1,000 you owe me.

      Adam owes God a debt. Does it make sense that God would kill HIMSELF in order to deem himself “paid” by Adam’s descendants? It does not make sense to me.

      For me, the only way the Christ’s sacrifice makes sense if the Christ is a being other than God. Thus, for me “the whole point” is that the Christ must be someone other than God. If the Christ and God are one, I can see no basis for supposing that a real “sacrifice” was made or for supposing that Adam’s debt is paid. If the Christ didn’t pay Adam’s debt, we are still under OT Law rather than NT grace.

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 4:18 AM

        It appears that the answers to your questions are too simple for your “technical” mind to see. You apparently did not like the Adam & Eve creation example I gave. The physical aspect is a “type of the spiritual.” You apparently don’t agree with the “Let US create man in OUR image either. I am so glad the “God” I love looks on the heart & not the technical mind & there is where your saving grace is. Once again, if you can find the book called,The man nobody knows, by Bruce Barton, Your reading it will bring you “much comfort & assurance & hope.” Also, it is a “real man’s type of book & that is right down your alley. Please don’t misunderstand. You have probably forgotten more than I will ever know about many things.

         
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 4:59 AM

        John 17:5 … And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the
        GLORY which I HAD with thee BEFORE the world was. … and,

        John 17:21- “I pray that they will ALL be ONE, just AS you and I are ONE–AS you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.

        Reading this whole chapter, John 17, should be uplifting.

         
      • NDT

        October 23, 2012 at 5:46 AM

        “A debt was incurred by Adam and mankind in the Garden of Eden”

        Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
        The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
        Ezekiel 18:19-20

         
      • pop de adam

        October 23, 2012 at 8:03 AM

        Hello Al,

        Al said: “A debt was incurred by Adam and mankind in the Garden of Eden. That debt was due to God. If the Christ is God and the Christ’s death paid the debt due God, then God paid Adam’s debt by allowing Himself to be killed.”

        A curious logic afoot? Why would a God utilize debt, and by implication credit possibly? It is his entire creation. It would seem nothing ever actually escapes God’s grasp, to me it seems off that God would resort to being a “spiritual accountant”. If I were in my spare time to create my own hobbyist bank that no one but myself ever used, except for my own entertainment, this Bank of Pop de Adam would have no bearing upon anyone else. These debts and credits would really exist, if at all, only for me. Those without(outside) my imagination might rightfully and properly think myself crazy for attempting to apply it to them.

        Sometimes things just happen at the level we exist at, our lives are derivative of all that happened before us, just as when we are gone, those that come after will be partially derivative of us. I don’t want to seem defeatist, but we are all given an opportunity to make use of what is here to some degree. However there are some who want to transgress this opportunity and transform this equality of opportunity into a guarantee of outcome. A simple example might be Social Security, as we are coming through the second generation and into the third generation: The first generation got benefits with little input to it, the second generation has input into it, while continuing support of the first, and contributing to their own, the third generation has carried the the tail end of the first, continued support of the second, and is still contributing for their own, and beginning to contemplate benefits. I could be completely wrong here, but when the fourth generation begins upon this endeavor at balance they will be dealing with this snowball effect(population increases aside, but still relevant). Perhaps that first generation should have beared it out, instead of compounding the problem trans-generational, it seems they only delayed an inevitability.

        I digress, my point was it is all God’s: creation, being and it’s final disposition. I don’t know what we do is or isn’t of any practicality to anyone but ourselves, and even possibly frivolous to comtemplate, except that what we know to be right and can be shown to others as reason and logic.

        -pop de adam

         
      • sem

        October 23, 2012 at 5:52 PM

        C6/H12/O6=the Atomic make-up of a sugar molecule. If one of the elements go missing, would sugar be sweet to the taste?

        If salt looses its’saltiness, what is it good for?

        Please note that in the Beginning…GOD first caused the Holy Spirit to cover the earth; then, God said, “Let There Be Light”; then HE began Creation.

        The operational words here are GOD, Holy Spirit and Light.

        Need I say more?

        PeaceOut

         
      • Mr. Lee

        October 23, 2012 at 8:14 PM

        Collosians1:15 read the whole chapter

        (Christ) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

        Matthew 1:23 (New King James Version)
        23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

        Walking on water is not logical.
        turning water to wine is not algebraic.
        multiplying thousands of fish from a can of tuna, doesn’t make sense.

        All other religions look for ways to get up to “GOD”.
        “God” comes down from eternity so He can get to us= Jesus Christ.

        The problem is not with the Bible, but the English language, which we know these words can be confused. That’s why we’re here (on this blog), to learn about words.

        Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 which begins with, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”. Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross. Consider verses 11-18 in Psalm 22:
        http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/why-did-jesus-cry-out-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me

        I see it as God the Father turning away from God the Son (who has never been separated from eternity) because Jesus took on our sins, evil thoughts, wickedness, and had to supernaturally deal with every disgusting thing everyone has ever done or will do all in one moment.

        It’s not east to comprehend and it doesn’t make sense that God would die for me. However i believe He did, if you pray He will tell you if Jesus is GOD or not, and his answer will come to you through a scripture. I gurranteee it!

         
      • Don

        October 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM

        Re:One to make the sacrifice; one to receive the sacrifice.

        One to make the sacrifice(Yeshua); one to receive the “BENEFITS/BLESSINGS,etc., of THE sacrifice (YOU).

         
      • Adask

        October 25, 2012 at 3:53 PM

        Could be. But I believe that making a sacrifice FOR me, is not the same as making a sacrifice TO me. In fact, when I think about it, a sacrifice must probably (or at least will frequently) have three parties: One to whom the sacrifice is made, one by whom the sacrifice is made, and one for whom the sacrifice is made. There may be other examples of “sacrifice,” but one comes to mind: a creditor (God) is owed a debt by a borrower and/or debtor (mankind) that is too great for the debtor to ever repay on its own; a third party (the Christ) who is capable of repaying that debt intervenes and makes a “sacrifice” of his own “assets” to the creditor (God) on behalf of the “impoverished” debtor “mankind”. I’m not saying that’s what happened. I’m only saying that’s what might have happened. It seems almost inevitable that every “sacrifice” must be “for” someone or something other than the “beneficiary” of that sacrifice. I.e., how can I make a “sacrifice” to pay my own debt? It makes no obvious sense that a debtor can be easily described as making a “sacrifice” by paying his own debt.

        Thus, a “sacrifice” is something like trust relationship wherein the one making the sacrifice is the fiduciary/trustee, and the one benefits from the “sacrifice” is the beneficiary of that trust relationship–and the one who receives the sacrifice is a “creditor” who is otherwise separate from the trust relationship between the fiduciary and beneficiary.

        This suggests that the “creditor” in the matter is in a separate trust relationship with the debtor. Thus, there may be TWO trust relationships. For example, God might have an original “trust relationship” with mankind wherein mankind is suppose to “tend the Garden of Eden” like a fiduciary for God’s benefit. Man is the servant/fiduciary, and God is the beneficiary. But man breaches his fiduciary obligations in his original trust relationship with God by eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. God, the beneficiary of that original trust therefore charges mankind with breach of fiduciary obligation and/or collapses the original trust, leaving man to survive as something other than God’s fiduciary.

        Until man can repay his debt to God, man is left . . . where? Outside of a trust relationship with God . . . ?

        Then, a third party (the Christ) intervenes who is not God and not man, and is therefore able to start a second, NEW trust relationship that is separate from the first trust relationship. In this new, second trust relationship, the Christ would be the fiduciary, mankind would be the beneficiary, and God might be a preexisting creditor who is not precisely a party to this second trust. (Before everyone starts chanting that I should stoned, crucified, or otherwise exterminated for my villainous thoughts, note that I’m merely spit-balling here.) The Christ (fiduciary for the second trust wherein the people are beneficiaries) voluntarily repays (with his own resources) the debt incurred by the people (who were fiduciaries relative to God in the original trust).

        I’m exploring the idea of two trusts: An original trust wherein the People are fiduciaries with obligations to the beneficiary, God; and later, a new, secondary trust wherein the same People are beneficiaries of the fiduciary Christ.

        It might even be that there are three trusts in this conglomeration. One trust between the beneficiary God and the fiduciary mankind; a second trust between the fiduciary Christ and the beneficiary God; and a third trust between the fiduciary Christ and the beneficiaries, mankind.

        Note that there is no reason why a man can’t be a fiduciary in one trust relationship and a beneficiary in another, and perhaps even a grantor in a third. In fact, the only hand and fast rule I know of in relationship to trust is the rule that the grantor (who creates the trust) could be a fiduciary in that trust, or a beneficiary, in that trust or could be completely separate from the trust, once the trust is created and is operational. However, the grantor cannot create a trust wherein he is BOTH fiduciary and beneficiary.

        Again, I’m not claiming that any of the foregoing is true. I’m simply hypothesizing out loud.

        P.S., I’m in the process of moving to another State of the Union. I probably won’t have time or be able to respond to any more comments before Monday or Tuesday of next week.

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 1:59 PM

        Hi Adask,
        @…three parties to the Trust–to whom, by whom, for whom–to,by,for–maybe we all need a 2×4 to hit us upside the head and help us see that as a body we need a new head. :-)

        Your hypothesizing the Trust relationship is correct in that it is about the Trust.
        THE ORIGINAL TRUST IS IRREVOCABLE =Garden (with terms and conditions)
        Trustor/Creditor/Grantor is and always will be=GOD
        Trustee/Fiduciary=Adam
        Beneficiary=Adam + plus offspring-future family/mankind

        Trust breached by Adam=SIN (Serpent In Now)=Blood is defiled in Adam/Eve/all mankind
        Trustee=Fired/Banned from garden
        Beneficiary=Offspring/mankind suffers from reaping benefits of the Trust (garden)

        Now the Trustor/Creditor/Grantor=God becomes also the Trustee–IF (conditions)=Clause in the Trust are adhered to by the Beneficiary=Offspring future family-ISRAEL OF GOD. They don’t– always looking and going for the greener grass in the other gardens.

        The breach of Trust MUST be remedied/paid for, but God now the Grantor/Trustee is willing to accept a blood sacrifice (the Clause) to pay for the breach, until full restitution is made to put the Trust in good standing, while still performing His Trustee/fiduciary duties. This restitution requires pure/unblemished blood as payment–but whose blood? especially pure and unblemished?

        Fast forward to THE Addendum (New Covenant) supplementing the ORIGINAL IRREVOCABLE TRUST with its terms and condition and payment for the breach.

        Enters the ONCE FOR ALL UNBLEMISHED BLOOD SACRIFICE FOR FULL PAYMENT to bring the Trust in good standing.– Who else but Yahweh could do this?

        TRUST RESTORED

        Trustor/Creditor/Grantor=Yahweh “GOD”
        Trustee=Yeshua/2nd Adam
        Beneficiary=Grantor’s and Trustee’s heirs/descendants (those who have accepted the payment on their behalf)

        Messiah–Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:3

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 2:01 PM

        Mr. Lee
        @October 23, 2012 at 8:14 PM

        Amen

         
      • NDT

        November 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

        @Adask October 23, 2012 at 2:08 AM

        “If the Christ didn’t pay Adam’s debt, we are still under OT Law rather than NT grace.”

        Why should anyone other than Adam pay Adam’s debt? The “too hard to pay” argument should consider that the role of the Pharisees made keeping the law onerous, and that it was a Pharisee that developed the doctrine of “NT grace”.

        The new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 is based on law, not grace, and is a covenant, not a testament.

         
      • Adask

        November 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

        If Adam paid his own debt there’d be no “sacrifice”. For a third party, someone other than Adam, to make that payment to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym would constitute a “sacrifice” of or by that third party. If a “sacrifice” was required, Adam could not have paid his own debt.

         
      • NDT

        November 4, 2012 at 6:11 PM

        @Adask November 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

        “If Adam paid his own debt there’d be no “sacrifice”.”

        Animal sacrifice involved the death of animals belonging to the party seeking forgiveness. That party paid for their own debt in that sense that they lost the animals, although of course the animals lost as well.

        In the gospels prophecy is often used to validate events, but there are problems finding prophecy which supports the Christian interpretation of the crucifixion. The prophetic Psalms speak of a man with no self-esteem, Isaiah 53 speaks of a man taken from prison and from judgment, and Luke 24:44 refers to non-existent prophecies of the crucifixion.

         
  14. Timmy

    October 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM

    Al, I appreciate your sincerity and humility, but in this case you are definitely out of your wheelhouse. Can not many be Adasks in family, nature and relationship, and still be distinct individuals? Are they not “one” in many ways? The Father/Son model is used in scritpture to make a general illustration; something we can understand and relate to. But it is not by any means complete or big enough to contain this huge supernatural reality. Our fallen minds are limited in their capacity to comprehend, especially so when it comes to the Divine things.

    The proof of Jesus divinity was in his words and sinless life; his miracles and ultimately his resurrection.le

    People like Paul had direct interaction with the living Christ and had no doubt he was divine….
    ditto John the Revelator.

     
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 9:29 PM

      Timmy,
      Re: Your message of/on October 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM

      AM I the ONLY one that understands what you said? If so, then that makes 2 instead of “one in a row.” I was beginning to feel like the “Lone Ranger.” Thank you !!!!!

       
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 5:47 AM

      If you are the “Timmy” That I said I would not contact anymore, I owe you an apology. I make mistakes. I don’t mean to make a liar out of myself. I made an honest mistake. Still, I was wrong in sending you a message & once again I apologize. I will try to be more careful from now on. I did not knowingly do it,i.e., send you a message when I said I would not do so.

       
    • Dea Lawman

      September 13, 2015 at 12:53 AM

      Timmy,
      @ People like Paul had direct interaction with the living Christ ……………………………..”
      EXACTLY!! BUT All of Paul’s higher than high education did not help him ONE IOTA in having an interaction with The Living Christ. Fact IS, His BRILLIANT MIND HINDERED HIM,i.e., Paul.
      Paul had to be hit in the head with a 2 by 4 TOO BEFORE he “saw the Light”. Looks like the same thing is going to have to happen with Alfred Adask TOO! High IQ won’t get it!! Alfred needs to travel on that Damascus ROAD! Then he will be able to say he is a ROADS SCHOLAR!!

       
  15. Anon4fun

    October 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    Don:

    {Anon4fun was blessed with a son, & “named him, Anon4fun JR. Anon4fun was not Anon4fun JR & Anon4fun JR was not Anon4fun. BUT they loved each other & were with each other more often than not. & even when they were not with each other “eyeball to eyeball” they were with each other “mentally.” They were not each other BUT they were a part of each other.

    With such a comparison, I agree. This is conveyed by, “I and my Father are one.” Meaning, “of one mind” and similar concepts.

    {“God” IS a FAMILY !!!}

    Where do you find this in the actual Bible? Chapter and verse, please. I need a scriptural basis to deal with. Otherwise, the discussion turns into so much argumentation without substantiation.

    {Also if you are going to pick & choose what scriptures you will dicard because they do not fit in with your way of thinking […]}

    I never do this, at least not intentionally. What I do discard are faulty translations which misrepresent God’s word. In case of controversy, go to the original text. A translation will suffice when everyone agrees it was done properly.

    Mr. Lee:

    {“The Christ” being God is the whole point.}

    Except I don’t see this precept in the actual Bible. My reading of scripture tells me that Christ’s establishment of the New Covenant was the point. His identity with God being important, or even true, is not mentioned anywhere that I can find aside from a few indirect suggestions in questionable translations.

     
    • Mr. Lee

      October 22, 2012 at 10:54 PM

      Anon4fun:

      Three questions:

      1. If “The Christ” is not God then what/who is He?

      2. What is the New covenant?

      let me help you respectfully, this is very serious, let’s all put down our affidavits, dictionaries, and constitutional rights for a second and focus, if you miss this…… eternity is too long to be wrong.

      This is the Gospel: God (Triune nature) came to earth in the form of a Man named Jesus Christ, He died and shed His Holy blood so we can go to heaven. He was crucified and allowed Himself to die because HE CLAIMED TO BE GOD. the Jewish leaders accused him of blasphemy for claiming to be GOD, and delivered Him to the Roman government to be executed. He resurrected and ascended into heaven and will return one day as “The KING of KiNGS and LORD of LORDS”.

      The connection between the blood of Jesus and the New Covenant is seen at the Last Supper where Jesus institutes the rite of Communion saying “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”.[5]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

      3. Why does the Bible mention His Blood?

       
      • sem

        October 22, 2012 at 11:49 PM

        The New Covenant will be written in the heart of Man (A New Creature).

        Blood is the fluid of Life. Blood covereth Sin. His blood was spilt for the redemption of Man.

         
      • NDT

        October 23, 2012 at 5:37 AM

        “What is the New covenant?”

        According to Hebrew thought, it is the renewal of the old covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). This bears little resemblance to the Christian new covenant.

         
      • sem

        October 23, 2012 at 5:57 PM

        Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of Almighty GOD.

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM

        NDT @October 23, 2012 at 5:37 AM

        Isaiah 9:6-7 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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
        Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

        Isaiah 53:1-7 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
        For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
        He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
        Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
        But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
        All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
        He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

        Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

        This is the New Covenant and an addendum to the Original Trust (OT) Covenant–THE PURE BLOOD OF YAHWEH

         
    • Don

      October 22, 2012 at 10:58 PM

      Anon4fun
      @ {“God” IS a FAMILY !!!}, AND

      @ Where do you find this in the actual Bible? Chapter and verse, please. I need a scriptural basis to deal with. Otherwise, the discussion turns into so much argumentation without substantiation.

      If Anon4fun has a son, I’m sure Anon4fun will agree that Anon4fun’s “son” is a “member” of Anon4fun’s family. What is so difficult to understand that if “God the Father has a son,this is also “family” The “family” UNIT runs throughout the Bible
      Common sense is the answer

       
  16. Don

    October 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM

    NDT
    You say: “No, you can’t understand when you value your beliefs more than the truth.”
    Couldn’t have said it better myself. YOU have a degree in Theology, don’t you? Sure you do. It’s OBVIOUS !!

     
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 12:22 AM

      “It’s OBVIOUS !!”

      So why did you say that what I posted implied the contrary?

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 1:00 AM

        NDT
        Having a degree in Theology doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to “Divine Revelation.” Seminaries are more like cemetaries. DEAD !!

         
  17. Anon4fun

    October 22, 2012 at 11:59 PM

    {1. If “The Christ” is not God then what/who is He?}

    Christ is the title, meaning anointed, of a man prophesied to be both King and Savior, namely Jesus of Nazareth.

    {2. What is the New covenant?}

    The New Covenant is the relationship between God and man established by Jesus Christ, wherein salvation from sin is possible.

    {3. Why does the Bible mention His Blood?}

    The man Jesus Christ shed the blood (an essential component of covenantal bonds between God and man) of the New Covenant, whereas previous covenants used the blood of animals.

     
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 12:34 AM

      “Christ is the title, meaning anointed, of a man prophesied to be both King and Savior, namely Jesus of Nazareth.”

      It’s only assumed that the kingship prophecies applied to him.

      “The New Covenant is the relationship between God and man established by Jesus Christ, wherein salvation from sin is possible.”

      No, established by YHWH (Jeremiah 31:31)

      “The man Jesus Christ shed the blood (an essential component of covenantal bonds between God and man) of the New Covenant, whereas previous covenants used the blood of animals.”

      No, the covenant was based on law, not blood (Jeremiah 31:33). Blood sacrifice was repudiated by the prophets. The doctrine of human sacrifice originated with a certain Pharisee who had a reputation for lying.

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 1:05 AM

        NDT

        Re:Your message of:October 23, 2012 at 12:34 AM to Anon4fun

        You are a LIAR & a DECEIVER !!!

         
  18. Anon4fun

    October 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM

    NDT:

    {It’s only assumed that the kingship prophecies applied to him.}

    I guess you mean “assumed” by those who haven’t read the Bible. Those who have should know better.

    Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

    Which was fulfilled by:

    Luke 19:35-40 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way. And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

    {No, established by YHWH (Jeremiah 31:31)}

    There’s no point in getting too precise about what “established” means, since this word is English and therefore not in the original text. It really applies to both roles with respect to the New Covenant: those of God and Jesus. For the latter, see my next citation.

    {No, the covenant was based on law, not blood (Jeremiah 31:33). Blood sacrifice was repudiated by the prophets. The doctrine of human sacrifice originated with a certain Pharisee who had a reputation for lying.}

    Hebrews 9:12-15 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

    The verse in Jeremiah you cited does not support your contradiction.

     
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 3:50 AM

      Anon4fun
      @October 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM (Your message)

      IF your beautiful, wonderful message doesn’t put a halter on NDDT’s hogwash boulderdash,only the “Good LORD” can educate him/her/it.
      I define halter as: A headstall usually with “noseband” and “throatlatch” to which a lead may be attached. I hope he will follow your lead. Some things NDDT says are close to if not outright blasphemy. Don’t bother to answer this.

       
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 4:31 AM

      Anon4fun:

      Re the kingship prophecies, I’m referring to the two Messiahs argument. You’re right about Zechariah 9:9, it doesn’t fit. But there are others,eg Isaiah 11 and Ezekiel 37:24 which do fit.

      The point about being precise is that it enables arguments to be falsified. If an argument isn’t falsifiable, then it has little value as truth. Jeremiah 31 speaks of the new covenant of YHWH. This covenenant is based on the law of YHWH and bears little if any relationship to the Christian new covenant.

      Hebrews 9 is just a rehash of the doctrine of the Pauline death cult. For example:

      For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
      Hebrews 9:16

      The Greek word translated as testament is diatheke, which is also translated as covenant.
      So when the writer of Hebrews speaks of the ark of the covenant, he is implying that the principal party to that covenant, YHWH, is dead.

      Another example is the reference in verse 14 to dead works. James argues against Paul’s doctrine of faith in James 2:20-26 (in reference to Romans 2:4-5), and in Revelation 20 it is works, not faith that saves the dead from the lake of fire.

      You imply that I cited Jeremiah to support a contradiction. What do you think the contradiction is?

       
    • deb

      November 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

      Hi Annon
      Re:NDT @October 23, 2012 at 12:34 AM

      For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ the Messiah as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7

      Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Hebrews (:22

       
      • NDT

        November 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

        @deb November 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

        “those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ the Messiah as coming in the flesh”

        There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions
        ~ Anglican Articles of Religion

        “and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”

        Wrong.

        But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.
        Leviticus 5:11

        And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
        Luke 5:20

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

        NDT
        Admit it…THE BLOOD OF YESHUA (GOD IN THE FLESH) CLEANSETH ALL SIN 1 JOHN 1:7–including yours if you would only believe. Is it possible?

        @LUKE 5:11 you didn’t finish—And the Pharisees…Yeshua says to them v. 23 “What is easier, to say Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say Rise up and walk…v. But that ye may know that the Son has power upon earth to forgive sins.

        So… are you a Pharisee?

        Because it’s pretty solemn what Yeshua has to say to Pharisees–Matthew 23

        Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
        13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

        15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

        16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

        23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

        25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

        27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

        29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

         
      • NDT

        November 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM

        @ deb November 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

        “THE BLOOD OF YESHUA (GOD IN THE FLESH) CLEANSETH ALL SIN”

        I’ve already pointed out to you that the term “God” is ambiguous. Man being made in the image and likeness of Elohim implies that they also have flesh and blood. An example of this is Genesis 18:1-8 (i.e. eating food implies the existence of a physical body). You acknowledge the seriousness of the error of the Pharisees, and yet you promote the death cult of the Pharisee known as Paul of Tarsus.

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM

        NDT
        @Saul of Tarsus…I don’t usually do this, but…yawn…you keep talking while I take a nap. :-)

         
  19. Jethro

    October 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM

    Al,

    The questions you’re wrestling with are very old and are ones the church addressed as far back as A.D. 325 in the First Council of Nicaea from which the Nicene Creed came. One of the Council’s top agenda items was addressing the “Arian question” regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being? The Council proclaimed, based on Scriptural presentation of the Son (as well as traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles), that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and being “of the same substance with the Father”. This is affirmed in John 1:1 and Col. 2:9 “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form”. Therefore Jesus has two natures: both fully God and man. Jesus as one of the “persons” of the Trinity is similar to the concept of time: time is past, present, and future; yet there are not three times, only one.

    Jesus prayed to the Father not because he wasn’t God, but because of his dual-nature. And as man he needed to pray. But he also prayed audibly for our benefit: “Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here” (John 11:41-42).

    Al, I believe you may be overthinking that which is beyond the full comprehension of man. We are finite and aren’t made to fully grasp God’s infinite nature. Therefore we must be humble about certain things and admit we can’t fully get it. Yet we trust the Creator. That’s what it means _not_ to be God. Ha. I suggest checking out http://carm.org for contemporary articles and discussions regarding Christian theology.

    Jesus had to become man to bear the sins of man. Though as God, he could have avoided or stopped his crucifixion at any time. Yet he willingly — as a man — died “as a ransom for many” Matt 20:28. For that He is worthy of worship, praise, honor and glory. Amen.

     
    • Adask

      October 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

      Where did the Apostles express their belief that “Jesus” was God?

      And why would God need to mislead anyone by appearing as the Christ? If I were God and I wanted something to be done, I’d simply do it without any deception or illusion.

      And if God was the Christ, was he also Moses? Pharoah? The 12 Apostles? John the Baptist? Mary Magdalene?

      As for over-thinking these questions, what’s your suggestion? That I quit thinking and just succumb to uncritical belief? It sounds like a good idea. I wish I could. But who shall I believe? You? The Muslims? The Catholics? The Protestants? Who shall I believe, and how shall I decided who I should believe except by THINKING perhaps even OVER-THINKING. Or, if I’m “over-thinking” things, how much “thinking” is just right? Not too much thinking; not too little thinking–just the right amount of thinking. But how can I know when I’ve thought too much or too little?

      If I recall correctly, the Bible advises that if we seek God, we will find Him. How can we “seek” God without thinking? Conversely, insofar as belief may be the suspension of “thinking,” when we settle in to a nice, comfortable system of belief, does that mean we’ve not only stopped thinking, but also stopped searching for God?

      Does your system of belief declare that it makes sense to stop searching for God?

      I read three reports of the Christ’s crucifixion that all declare that the Christ was praying to God as someone other than himself. It makes no sense to believe that those biblical reports are true, but that Christ was actually God and therefore praying to himself. I do not . . . it may be true that I can not . . . believe in an irrational God.

      Something is wrong. Either the reports in the Bible are true, in which case the Christ is not God–or the reports in the Bible are false, and the Christ is God. But we can’t have it both ways.

      I don’t think that the contradiction can be resolved with mere trusting belief. If I can’t believe the words of the Bible, whose words should I believe? Yours? Jim Jones? Adolph Hitler’s? Mitt Romney’s? Obama’s? Is everything I need to know within me? Should I just “do what I wilt”? If it feels good, do it? The words in the Bible have to mean something. If they don’t, then the Bible is useless or at least unreliable.

      Did you come to your faith without the Bible? Is your faith based on intuition or mysticism rather than the Bible? If it feels good, believe it?

      Doesn’t the Bible warn that there is a way that seems right to a man, but is not? Does that warning apply to an untested faith? How do we get past a personal belief that seems right (but is not) without thinking or even over-thinking?

      I am particularly disturbed that anyone would accuse me of “over-thinking”. I’m sure our government and especially the public school system would agree that we need to put an end to all this “over-thinking”. We need to turn off our minds and just believe whatever our leaders tell us. I don’t mind people telling me that I’m thinking incorrectly and showing me evidence to prove my mistake. But when I am accused of simply “over-thinking” issues that may determine whether I am or am not saved, I doubt that any such “overage” is possible.

      Instead, when I’m accused of “over-thinking,” I presume that accusation is advanced by someone who may be incapable or fearful of “thinking enough” to face and resolve a contradiction.

      So, my questions to you are: Is it absolutely true that I am “over-thinking” this issue? Or is it possible that you are “under-thinking” this issue?

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 2:12 PM

        Re: overthinking v. underthinking

        Regarding whether “The Christ” was or was not “God” You do seem to have a mental block about the issue & I don’t believe it is due to overthinking because I do not see how anything can be “overthought.” Maybe it can,I don’t know. It’s beyond my ability to understand.But this I do know. There are at least two beings known as “God”. One is referred to as the “SON” The other is referred to as the FATHER. And, “God” said: Let US make man in OUR image. If you don’t want to accept this,e.g. US and OUR. you will never find or understand the answer,until The Christ explains it to you. I wonder if you will disagree with him?

         
      • sem

        October 23, 2012 at 6:09 PM

        Many people do not realize that the entire Bible is all about Jesus Christ (King of Kings/Lord of Lords). To Man (The New Creature) Jesus is God (“…for no one may enter lest they come through me”…saith the Lord). Not even prayer may enter lest it is presented in the Name of Lord Jesus.

        Please note in all Scripture as to the use of capital letters to destinguish the difference between The FATHER and The Son.

        PeaceOut

         
      • Timmy

        October 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM

        Al,
        I think it’s important to recognize a few scriptural points:
        1 Christ was “begotten” of (From) the Father. It’s a special word; lots of varied discussion on what it fully means.
        2 Christ was fully God in nature (as the Son) AND fully man, as “the second Adam”. Thus He is unique in the history of the world and universe. So there’s lots of high and difficult ground there to explore and comprehend. But sometimes he speaks from his humanity, especially toward the end of his earthly life as the darkness closed in on Him.
        3 Spiritual things are spiritually discerned; that does not imply the abandoning of reason. But the word says plainly that the “wise of this world” will not see the truths of God (through human reasoning and learning). IE, it is a blend of faith, spiritual revelation and reason together that leads to understanding. Obviously we are all children and seeing thru a glass darkly. But I have found God will give light when we patiently and faithfully ask for it.

        He promises (James 1) to give wisdom to all who ask for it…. if they believe He will.

        Just some thoughts.
        This is deep water…

         
      • Jethro

        October 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM

        Certainly it’s possible to overthink… “paralysis by analysis” — a trap and misapplication of thinking. It can actually impair one’s ability to solve problems by spiraling into pointless ruminations.  In this case it’s the mind of man (finite) attempting to comprehend the nature of God (infinite).  How much thinking will it take to succeed in that attempt? Is it any amount short of infinite? Is it possible you have thought yourself into a phantom theological corner?

        Al, it appears you’re having a difficulty with the dual-nature of the Christ, a.k.a. “the incarnation”, being both fully man and God. He can be both “Son of Man” and “Son of God” without contradiction. To answer your question as to whom Christ was praying in the Garden and on the cross, it was “Son of Man” praying because as a man, He needed to pray. But he did not cease to be “Son of God”. Was he praying to himself? No. Do I “intellectually” have a full understanding of the nature of that relationship? No. Do I accept it nonetheless? Yes.

        I believe it is important to recognize the questions you pose are not new; in fact, they’re centuries old. That this issue has been debated and settled as orthodoxy long ago may not be of importance to you. But I believe it would behoove you research those ancient debates and read why it was settled accepted as such today. To understand that these ‘revelations’ are not new (but are a variant of Arianism or Oneness theology heresies) gives us a dose of humility that tempers the inclination to overthink.

        Of course we must use our minds; but the same time we must understand that we are not just creations of minds, but also heart and soul (cue music).  Matt. 22:37.  There are some things that will not be fully understood on earth.  While the nature of God is infinitely incomprehensible, the message of the Gospel is magnificently simple. I believe that’s where you’re going awry, at least in part.

         
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 10:43 PM

        Jesus was God and IS God:

        remember the saying, “Before Abraham was…I AM”.

        That’s when the ‘stufff’ hit the fan, baby!

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 3:06 PM

        Hi Adask
        @I read three reports of the Christ’s crucifixion that all declare that the Christ was praying to God as someone other than himself. It makes no sense to believe that those biblical reports are true, but that Christ was actually God and therefore praying to himself. I do not . . . it may be true that I can not . . . believe in an irrational God.

        Always go to the Torah as documented facts first as the Bereans did.

        Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: Psalm 40:7-8

        Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. Isaiah 6:8

        And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28

        But unto the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

         
      • Eric Christenson

        January 8, 2015 at 1:18 AM

        Let’s say you hire me as one of your “roof workers.” You tell me what you want done, & then you

        say, Let’s (Let us) get to work. This does not necessarily mean we are going to go to the same

        jobsite & work side by side. You go back to your, desk & start your next “anti-Shyster” article. I go to

        the Roofer job site. Later you “drop by the job site” & hopefully tell me, Good Job, Well Done.

         
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM

      The Council of Nicea was convened by the emperor of Rome (aka Babylon) and as such had a political purpose: the codification of the state religion. The state regarded the emperor to be divine or semi-divine, but the tribute passage shows that the Jews did not hold this to be true.

      Regarding the ransom sacrifice:

      The wicked [shall be] a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright.
      Proverbs 21:18

       
      • Jethro

        October 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM

        Even if the Council of Nicea were convened for ulterior political (wicked) purposes, is it not possible that God could use it for His purposes nonetheless? See Proverbs 16:4 for the answer.

         
    • deb

      November 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM

      Hi Jethro

      Amen and
      @Jesus had to become man to bear the sins of man. Though as God, he could have avoided or stopped his crucifixion at any time. Yet he willingly — as a man — died “as a ransom for many” Matt 20:28. For that He is worthy of (ALL) worship, praise, honor and glory. Amen.

      Forever and ever Amen

       
      • Don

        November 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

        @For that He is worthy of (ALL) worship, praise, honor and glory. Amen.

        Whoever refuses to accept this is an enemy of The Supreme “God”

         
  20. Anon4fun

    October 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    NDT:

    There is no “two Messiah” argument of any merit. The Messiah of the Old Testament is a unique individual. If the prophesy of Zechariah 9:9 refers to Jesus, then all like prophesies do the same. This applies to Jeremiah 31 also. Since you did not explain the nature of your objection, I won’t try to guess what it is.

    {The Greek word translated as testament is diatheke, which is also translated as covenant. So when the writer of Hebrews speaks of the ark of the covenant, he is implying that the principal party to that covenant, YHWH, is dead.}

    This is illogical. The Greek word “diatheke” can mean either a testament or a covenant, depending on context. The writer of Hebrews using the word as “testament ” in one place does not change its use as “covenant” in another place.

    {Another example is the reference in verse 14 to dead works. James argues against Paul’s doctrine of faith in James 2:20-26 (in reference to Romans 2:4-5), and in Revelation 20 it is works, not faith that saves the dead from the lake of fire.}

    “Another example” from a list of alleged Biblical contradictions on the internet, I suppose. Be advised that these compilations of canards are the product of hack propaganda activism targeting the gullible and are easily recognized as such by their characteristic hate-filled clumsiness.

    Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

    Here is Paul also stating a doctrine of works. When he wrote about “justification” through faith alone in Romans, he meant one’s original conversion to Christ. One’s future reward for works, as discussed by James, is a different subject.

    {You imply that I cited Jeremiah to support a contradiction. What do you think the contradiction is?}

    The contradiction that begins “No, the covenant was based on law, not blood” in the statement I quoted. See the post.

     
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM

      {The Messiah of the Old Testament is a unique individual. }
      No, messiah means annointed, and many Jewish figures were annointed.

      And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely YHWH’s anointed [is] before him.
      1 Sam 16:6 (messiah and annointed are translations of the same Hebrew word)

      In a similar vein, “son of man” is not an exclusive title, eg Ezekiel 2:1.

      Regarding diatheke: The argument presented in Hebrews 9:16 is misleading because in verse 20 the writer conflates the ambiguous diatheke (translated as testament) with the unambiguous Hebrew word for covenant, bĕriyth. This falsely attributes the death of the testator to the Hebrew covenant.

      {“Another example” from a list of alleged Biblical contradictions on the internet, I suppose.}
      An ad hominem is a argument of last resort, Anon4fun. The point is that the conflict between James, as leader of the disciples according to Hebrew law, and Paul, as self-appointed apostle to the Gentiles, is evident in James’ writing and in the divergence between Paul’s instructions from the Council of Jerusalem and Paul’s message to the Galatians. (Acts 15:19-21, Galatians 2:10-11)

      Regarding Galatians 6:8, James describes works as being a positive thing, but your verse describes the flesh as being negative. The rejection of the flesh is a tenet of Gnosticism which is also part of core Christian doctrine: eg “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions””. This doctrine is contrasted by Hebrew scripture which describes YHWH being seen by people, talking to people, and eating food with them. To make matters worse for orhodoxy, the food eaten by YHWH would have been rejected by the Rabbis, reinforcing Y’shua’s allegation that the Pharisees/Rabbis made the law onerous for the people.

      You said that there is a contradiction relating to what I previously posted. Can you identify it in what I posted?

      No, the covenant was based on law, not blood (Jeremiah 31:33). Blood sacrifice was repudiated by the prophets. The doctrine of human sacrifice originated with a certain Pharisee who had a reputation for lying.

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM

        NDDT SAY {The Messiah of the Old Testament is a unique individual. }
        Yeah the ol boy was that awrite. He sho waw. I’m sure if you had been there to help him out he would have been even more unique. Oh well no use cryin over regluh spilt milk.

         
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM

      Anon4fun,
      Re:Your “beautiful” message to “NDDT” on October 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM.

      NDDT has a degree in Theology. I doubt he will agree with you on at least most of what you explained, because cemetery education, excuse me, seminary education does not fit the mould of humility & learning of/from the “heart” AND mind.
      I am appointing you, Anon4fun, my mentor. I wish I had the ability to express myself as you do. I owe you a heartfelt apology for becoming upset with you at times in the past. The problem was, I did not express myself adequately. No responseto this post/message is expected.

       
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

      NDDT says: “about Paul” & gives a link to a video to justify NDDT’s cemetery, excuse me, his seminary belief.

      The following is about what the Apostle Peter said “about Paul”

      “This is just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him–
      speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand,
      and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something
      quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture–and the result is disaster for them.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NLT)

      Looks like NDDT is in for a disaster

       
      • NDT

        October 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM

        @Don,

        Yes, Peter did endorse Paul. But Peter was also warned about him. Peter’s warning concerned his fate during his later years. According to tradition Peter died with Paul in Rome.

        Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not.
        John 21:18

         
    • Don

      November 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

      Dear Mentor,
      I hope you & deb can start exchanging messages,then again if you did, the entire NET would probably crash.

       
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM

        Don
        @Dear Mentor…you’re still a hoot :-)

         
  21. mvg-avg

    October 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM

    Dueteronomy 6:4 “the one Yahweh”,my Jerusalem Bible says “ONE” and uses the holy Name,the sacred Name ,the only Name.Question :did Judas of Iscariot get replaced by Paul?Was Paul a member of the BAR ????? A serpent creature spoken of in 2 Peter 1:1, and 2:12.Was paul the 13th??

     
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

       
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

        Re your comment of: “Yes, Peter did endorse Paul. But Peter was also warned about him.”

        I can just see that happening, e.g. Yes,beloved brother Peter, I am here to WARN you about your

        as you call him,beloved brother Paul.

        You say,Peter,”this is just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him

        speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand,and

        those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something quite

        different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture–and the result is disaster

        for them.”

        Peter I am warning you for the last time to QUIT saying things like,e.g., the wisdom God gave to him

        (Paul) but keep on saying EXACTLY as you have correctly stated that his(Paul) comments are

        hard to understand, in fact why not make it even more clear by saying his statements are

        IMPOSSIBLE to understand. Instead of saying disaster is the result for those who twist Paul’s

        comments,say instead,Paul is ignorant & unstable & disaster will be the result for Paul twisting the

        scriptures. Above all, Quit calling Paul your beloved brother

         
      • NDT

        October 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

        @Don,

        Re: Warning Peter about Paul

        So why wasn’t Y’shua more explicit? He was pretty explicit in Matthew 23. Weren’t the disciples were aware that Paul was a Pharisee? Paul made no secret of it in Acts 23:6.

         
      • Don

        October 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

        FROM NDT

        October 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

        TO:@Don,

        Re: Warning Peter about Paul

        NDT says/asks: So why wasn’t Y’shua more explicit? He was pretty explicit in Matthew 23. Weren’t the disciples were aware that Paul was a Pharisee? Paul made no secret of it in Acts 23:6.

        Why do you think he was not explicit & what exactly was it that he was not explict about, other than possibly everything. Have a talk with him (Yahshua) & ask him why he was not more explicit. I’m sure he needs your input & tell him how he should have said whatever it was that he was not explicit about. While you’re at it, tell him how much you disapprove of Paul’s writings & that you don’t agree with the scripture that says: ALL scripture is given through the inspiration of “God” ….”
        I only hope that Yahshua doesn’t break down & starts crying & asks you to have mercy on him & to fforgive him. Be gentle with him NDT because he is so fragile & tender. Show him some mercy for the error of his ways. I’m sure he did not mean to upset you. I’m sure that the main thing on his mind was: I, Yashua must not do anything that might even possibly upset NDT.NDT PLEASE, give him one more chance to get his house in order & to straighten up & fly right but let him know for sure it’s his last chance. I’m sure he will be so grateful to you.

         
    • sem

      October 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM

      Short answer…NO!

       
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM

      mvg-avg
      Who are/were the “US” in the scripture that says: “… and God said let US make man in OUR image.
      I am not asking who “God” is,I am asking who comprises the “US”

       
      • Adask

        October 24, 2012 at 5:32 AM

        Good question. God and the Christ? God and the Holy Spirit? God and the angels? God and the Christ, Holy Spirit and angels? Other?

         
      • sem

        October 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        In a Word the descendents of ORIGINAL man via transcontenintal migration is he who comprises the US (and the world).

         
  22. Anon4fun

    October 23, 2012 at 5:52 PM

    NDT:

    {No, messiah means annointed, and many Jewish figures were annointed.}

    The prophesies for the Messiah are not fulfilled by someone simply fitting what the generic word “messiah” means. Messiah is a proper title, not merely a description.

    Daniel 9:25-26 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

    This is a prophesy about a specific man.

    {Regarding diatheke: The argument presented in Hebrews 9:16 is misleading because in verse 20 the writer conflates the ambiguous diatheke (translated as testament) with the unambiguous Hebrew word for covenant, bĕriyth. This falsely attributes the death of the testator to the Hebrew covenant.}

    This accusation is unfounded. You have misconstrued the passage as deceptive when another, more correct, interpretation is available. The author of Hebrews is saying the old and new covenants differ in that the new one, in addition to being a covenant, is also a will where the testator offered the blood component of a covenant with God. Thus the New Testament fulfills the greater potential of what “diatheke” means, while the Old Testament, being a foreshadowing, takes the word’s meaning to a lesser extent.

    {An ad hominem is a argument of last resort, Anon4fun.}

    No ad hominem intended. I have seen similar claims before on slithery hate sites, so I am recommending you think twice before running with anything you find at such outlets. In the event what you are posting here are your own arguments, this does not apply.

    Galatians 6:8 uses “the flesh” in an idiomatic, not a literal, way. It is not a condemnation of the material body in general. Paul also taught a doctrine of bodily resurrection, which in itself disposes of any clam he was a Gnostic.

    {You said that there is a contradiction relating to what I previously posted. Can you identify it in what I posted?}

    You contradicted what I posted by claiming the covenant was not in blood and that Jeremiah 31 supports this. It does not.

     
    • NDT

      October 23, 2012 at 8:50 PM

      @Anon4fun

      {You contradicted what I posted by claiming the covenant was not in blood and that Jeremiah 31 supports this. It does not.}

      What I said was that the covenant was based on law, not blood.

      But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people.
      Jeremiah 31:33

      The idea of vicarious human sacrifice is opposed by the law of YHWH:

      The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
      Deuteronomy 24:16

      Also, justice and righteousness are translations of the same Hebrew word. Vicarious human sacrifice is the antithesis of justice and the antithesis of righteousness.

       
  23. sem

    October 23, 2012 at 6:32 PM

    Many of the Books in Scripture are written in plain-everyday language; yet, a few Books in Scripture (i.e., Genesis, Job, Hebrews, The Revelation, etc.) must be revealed to man via the Holy Spirit as to the meaning therein.

    This is why it is sometimes confusing for many of us to explain the labyrinth of Legal Jargon.

    To resolve this; one must ask the LORD (thru-and-by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) for wisdom and understanding, thereof. Then, set aside TIME and PLACE for diligence, therein. Then allow for the Blessing, there, from.

     
    • Don

      October 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

      Sem said:” Police is Police IDIOT.” this is an example of his(sem) defining, as he(sem) calls it, the labyrinth of Legal Jargon.

       
  24. messianicdruid

    October 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

    I don’t think you guys got the import of my previous comment. Maybe the HNV will help:

    “The LORD is my strength and song. He has become my yeshu`ah.”

    They used the word LORD because they didn’t want the people to mispronounce the tetragrammaton.

    LORD is not the Father God. LORD is YHWH or Yahveh or the poetic form, Yah.

    Y = life
    H = giver {feminine}
    W = law
    H = giver {masculine}

    This verse is saying the LORD became my yeshua. IOW before the little baby named Jesus {Yahshua} was born {incarnated}, He {and the Holy Spirit} was dealing with the israelites as Yahveh, while God the Father remained on His throne. No one has seen the Father at any time.

     
  25. Don

    October 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    Long answer
    Yes Indeed

     
  26. Tony

    October 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

    Hi Al,

    I hope you can take the time to digest my response.

    There are a couple of passages that say the Son of God created all. There are passages that suggest Jesus had an existence before the incarnation.

    Here is an interesting passage:

    John 5:18
    Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

    Add to this that Romans 1 says the godhead can be understood by the things that are made.

    In this existence, children are younger than their parents and inherit the nature of their parents. We are told Jesus was the son of man. This would seem to suggest Jesus walked this earth with the nature of humanity. By the way, Romans 1:3 and Hebrews 2 say that Jesus was born of the seed (spermatos in the Greek) of man. Given the virgin birth, it makes sense part of the miracle of the incarnation was God joining a male sperm with one of Mary’s eggs.

    Indeed, Jesus said of His own self, He could do nothing. He walked by faith. He was not righteous by nature, He was righteous by His Father’s grace working through His faith.

    One other thing. No one is created at birth. We are told that creation was finished after 6 days. But, we know we are created by tracing our lineage back to Adam of whom the record states was created.

    How then do we reconcile His pre-existence and His creative ability?

    One important idea is that biblically, the word TRUE may carry the meaning of ORIGINAL (see as an example Hebrews 8:2). With this meaning, that which is not true NEED NOT BE FALSE.

    I suggest that we confess to the greatest of our understanding that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and as such, this makes Him equal with God.

    How so?

    If God begat a Son, would it follow that His Son would inherit the nature of His Father? Would it also follow that Jesus in some way is younger than His Father? And thus is not the TRUE (original) God?

    Let’s extend this a bit further.

    Adam was the one true (original) man.

    On that basis, Al, do you deny that you are also a man? Of course not!

    I suggest that the Father is the one true (original) God and that He decided to beget a Son and so the Christ cannot be the one true God, but as He inherited His Father’s nature, He was born divine (God).

    I also suggest that the vast majority of the time, the word God in the NT (theos) carries the meaning “the one original (true) God” and thus refers to the Father only.

    John 17:3
    3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

    1 Corinthians 8:6-7a
    6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge;

    And so it seems that at least at one time, there were two Gods, the original and His only born Son. Jesus was not created, He was begotten and if we race His pre-incarnate lineage back, it traces to God the Father meaning the essence (nature) of Jesus is uncreated.

    Now, at the incarnation, Jesus laid aside His divine attributes.

    Did He reclaim them sometime after the resurrection? Well, I know of only two texts that could be taken to refer to the post-ascension attributes of the Son of God. One is Revelation 1:1 where God shows Jesus the revelation of Jesus. (If Jesus were omniscient, why would He need to be shown?)

    The other is Revelation 14:15-16 where Jesus is told when it is time to reap, which time is the time of the Second Coming, which time He said He did not know when on earth. It appears He still does not know.

    I suggest God gave birth to a Son who was also therefore divine (God), but being a Son could not have been the one true. At the incarnation, Jesus laid aside His divine attributes and it appears HE LAID THEM ASIDE FOREVER.

    Perhaps there is more to the text, “For God so loved the world that He GAVE…”

    I believe the Holy Spirit is not a person rather an influence.

    I also believe the trinity is nonsense. The formal creed states that the Son does not have independent consciousness, thereby destroying His own personality.

    If one is trinitarian and maintains the three have indepence of consciousness, they state a contradiction. They maintain that “One” consists of multiple conscious existences.

    That is not a mystery, that is a fallacy.

    Blessings,

    Tony

     
    • Adask

      October 24, 2012 at 6:37 AM

      According to John 5:18, “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” But is it true that the Christ said God was His father? Or that the Jews or some other party said “God was his father”? My understanding of the Bible is that the Christ was very reluctant to admit that God was his father throughout most of his life. It was a secret of sorts that was ultimately shared with his Disciples, but not publicized. You are relying on a verse that sounds like hearsay. Saying what the JEWS SAID that the Christ said is not the same as saying what the Christ actually said. More, the Jews’ conclusion that by saying God was the Christ’s father made Christ equal to God is not necessarily logical. It depends on the definition attached to “equal”.

      I say my earthy father was Alex. Does that make me equal to Alex (who, incidentally, passed on 15 years ago)? If my earthly father is dead, does that mean I’m dead, too? It’s true that I may be “equal” to my earthly father in terms of rights, citizenship, etc. But I am not equal in terms height, weight, wealth, age or current capacity for life. I might be “equal” to my father in some regards, but I am still not IDENTICAL. Claiming to be the Son of God might constitute evidence of a kind of political equality, but it would not provide evidence that God and the Christ might be one in the same.

      You write, “If God begat a Son, would it follow that His Son would inherit the nature of His Father? Would it also follow that Jesus in some way is younger than His Father? And thus is not the TRUE (original) God?”

      If my father Alex begat a son (me), would it follow that I (Alex’s son) would inherit the nature of my earthy father?” In part, yes. But it would also follow that, unless my earthly father conceived and bore me without aid of a mother, I would also inherit part of the nature of my mother.

      Similarly, it’s my understanding that the Christ had both a divine Father and an earthly mother. Are you arguing that the Christ took on only the nature of his divine Father, but none of the nature of his earthly mother? Are you arguing that the Christ’s “DNA” is only from God? That Mary made no genetic contribution to the Christ? That God used Mary’s womb as an incubator, but did not mix His “DNA” with Mary’s? If so, as a purely divine being, how was it that Christ was subject to the same lusts and temptations as a mortal man? How was the Christ (being purely divine) truly the “son of man”?

      If the Christ carries no DNA from Mary, that should be interesting news for the Catholics. Perhaps they will change their depiction of “Mary” from the “Mother of Christ” to “Mary, the Incubator and Wetnurse of Christ”.

      On the other hand, if you concede that the Christ bore at least part of Mary’s DNA, and was therefore at least partially a “mortal,” how can you argue that the Christ as he appeared in this life as someone who was at least partially mortal, was equal to (let alone identical to) God (who presumably has no “defective” DNA of the sort we can find in mortals)?

      If the Bible is true, and God is and has always been ETERNAL, then God can’t ever die or have died. While the Christ (and you and I) may become “eternal,” insofar as the Christ, you and I die, we weren’t necessarily born to be “eternal” in the sense that God is eternal (incapable of dying). If the Christ died for three days, then the Christ was not as “fully eternal” as God. If the Christ died, but God cannot die, then the Christ is not God.

      If the Christ is God and God is truly eternal and incapable of dying, then the Christ-God didn’t actually die on the cross. If no one actually died at the Crucifixion, there was no real sacrifice. The entire story was merely play-acting, and whatever debt was incurred by Adam has not yet truly be paid. If so, Christianity may be no more true than the story of Santa Claus and your hope of salvation through Christ may be vain.

      For me, the only way the Christian faith can work is if the Christ is a separate and distinct being from God who voluntarily consented to sacrifice his own life to offer a chance for salvation to mankind. If the Christ is God, God died on the cross. If the Christ is God, there was no sacrifice to God. If the Christ is God, the Christian faith is without foundation. In fact, if the Christ is God, we may all be Jews.

       
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM

        May I respectfully interject the necessity that we speak not in the PAST TENCE we referring to the Trinity.

        The blink of HIS eyes is what we call one-thousand(1,000) years.

        HIS existence is eternal PRESENT TENCE (I AM…that I AM) should ring a bell.

         
      • Tony

        October 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

        Hi Al,

        Just want to clear one thing up. I hope in doing so I am not coming off forcefully. Just sharing my present understanding.

        You wrote:
        Similarly, it’s my understanding that the Christ had both a divine Father and an earthly mother. Are you arguing that the Christ took on only the nature of his divine Father, but none of the nature of his earthly mother? Are you arguing that the Christ’s “DNA” is only from God? That Mary made no genetic contribution to the Christ? That God used Mary’s womb as an incubator, but did not mix His “DNA” with Mary’s? If so, as a purely divine being, how was it that Christ was subject to the same lusts and temptations as a mortal man? How was the Christ (being purely divine) truly the “son of man”?

        My understanding, Al, is that Jesus was literally born of God way before the incarnation and that this does not refer to His incarnation. And of course, God is not limited as we are and does not need “a wife” in order to procreate.

        And at the incarnation, Jesus was literally born of a woman.

        I think this clears up a few things. For one, it is written that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. Jesus was not begotten of God at the incarnation, He was begotten of a woman. My personal belief is that the miracle of the incarnation is that God joined a human male sperm to an egg of Mary’s. This would concur with Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8 (seed = spermatos in the Greek).

        It would also explain texts like the following:

        John 1:1-3
        1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

        Colossians 1:15-19
        15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,

        Anyway, I guess I was not clear in suggesting that Christ was twice born, once of God and later, of a woman. This explaining how Christ could have created.

        My position is the same as yours in that I maintain the Father only is the one true (original) God and that Jesus is of God.

        Take Care,

        Tony

         
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM

        Alfred says:

        If the Christ is God, there was no sacrifice to God. If the Christ is God, the Christian faith is without foundation. In fact, if the Christ is God, we may all be Jews.

        I can hardly believe this really came from Alfred. I thought he at least knew that the “Jews” were only ONE of the 12 tribes of Israel. ALL “true” Jews Are Israelites, BUT not all Israelites are Jews. If he doesn’t even know this, how can he possibly understand that what he, Alfred said before this, is at best, gross error. What Alfred says is total “antichrist” thinking”. VERY DANGEROUS. BUT, since I cannot read hearts & minds, and because I do care for him, I will just say he is sadly mistaken. Yeshua IS “God” BUT he, Yeshua is not “God” The Father. They are 2 separate entities/beings, the same in a physical sense that Alfred & HIS son are 2 different beings. Much more could be said, but it appears it would be said in vain. I, Don, ask that everyone who does believe that Yeshua IS the Messiah, to PRAY for Alfred’s enlightenment. AS far as I can tell his good points far exceed his one FLAW. I have MANY FLAWS & Alfred has forgotten probably MORE than I will ever know about many OTHER things. But, Alfred needs some help on this one flaw he has. There are many ways to pay a “debt.” If I owe you a hundred frns, would you accept a 20 DOLLAR Gold coin for the debt I owe you? You would be a fool not too. Pray for Alfred, & me too if I’m asking too much. Thanks.

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM

        Adask
        @October 24, 2012 at 6:37 AM
        see the reply comment @deb November 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM

        Messiah can not have Adam’s blood in his veins–Adam’s blood is impure. There is no blood in the placenta–the only things that can pass from mother to child via placenta is nutrients and oxygen, which helps the child develop. Yeshua could have come down fully grown, but chose to go through the process the Adamic race is going through–in this way he can identify with us in all things–yet WITHOUT SIN.

        Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

        For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:3

        For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:21

        And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 1 John 3:5

        I and [my] Father are one. John 10:30

         
  27. Tony

    October 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

    One other thing I meant to say.

    The oneness we are to confess is that there is one TRUE God and so my belief does not deny this oneness.

    not mono-theism

    rather

    mono-alesthinos-theism

    where alesthinos = true (original)

    To insist Jesus is the one true God is to deny what I understand we are most called to confess – Thou art the Christ, the SON of the Living God.

    And a reminder – we are told we can understand the Godhead through the things that are made.

    Sons are never as old as their fathers.

    Blessings,

    Tony

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 5:20 PM

      Tony,
      It just might be,since no one else on this “Adask Law” blog, seems to, that YOU will be one of the very few, even in the “World,” able to understand & agree with the following:
      We have a duality (2) throughout the scriptures,e.g., Sun/Moon-day/night-man/woman-“old testament/new testament, just to mention a few “dualities.” The physical aspect is a “type” of the spiritual aspect.

      Did you, since nobody else seemingly gives it a thought, ever wonder why Eve was “created” in a way, different from the way Adam was created? Therein lies the “secret” of why, as you say,Sons are never as old as their fathers. This will take some thought, to think about, but maybe you will be one of the very few who sees the “flash.”

      I cannot read hearts & minds so I don’t know how you grasped/saw, etc., what was just stated. Most people say it makes no sense at all & makes a hard to understand event even worse.So my purpose has been defeated, made in vain, wasting other peoples’ precious time & steering them away from more important things,e.g., “Bigger Fish to fry.”
      What do you think?

       
  28. messianicdruid

    October 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    “Sons are never as old as their fathers.”

    How could the concept of ‘older’ or ‘younger’ apply to beings which are not subject to time, unless they subject themselves to it in order to demonstrate something we could not appreciate otherwise?

     
    • Adask

      October 24, 2012 at 5:47 AM

      Which brings us back to that famous conumdrum, “Which came first–the Father or the Son?”

       
      • Jethro

        October 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

        Neither. Both co-existed “in the beginning”. See John 1.

         
      • sem

        October 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM

        If I remember correctly,

        The sayings:

        What came first, the chicken or the egg–and the other, whould GOD create the rock that HE, HIMSELF could not lift; were supposed to be paradoxes not conumdrum. Inasmuch as your question…the chicken (FATHER) came first. For if the egg (Son) was first…how would it be nourished?

        PeaceOut

         
      • Mr. Lee

        October 24, 2012 at 6:05 PM

        They both have always been that’s the hard part.

         
      • sem

        October 24, 2012 at 10:51 PM

        Agreed!

         
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 12:01 AM

        sem
        That’s when the ‘stufff’ hit the fan, baby!

        WOW !! I never thought you would agree with me. When I know I am wrong I will fessup in a heartbeat. AND, I was wrong. I should have said:That’s,or this is at least one “more” time the do do (stuff) hit the fan. Your comment really helped me this time & I thank you, sincerely !! And, I still say that the “I AM in Exodus 3:14, is the SAME, I AM, in what is referred to as the “New Testament.”

         
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 6:24 PM

        ADASK, says:

        Which brings us back to that famous conumdrum, “Which came first–the Father or the Son?”

        It seems the Rooster existed before anything else. I do know for sure the the rooster came before the hen, & when the rooster saw her, the hen, all he could say was: WOW !! let us be fruitful & multiply. The hen say: Whut chew tawkin baut BOY You bawkin up duh rong tree Boy !! U bettuh let me aloant boy. It’s serious things like this we should be commenting about. This is about all this has come down to. How tragic !!

         
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 2:41 PM

      How could the concept of ‘older’ or ‘younger’ apply to beings which are not subject to time ?

      How can one be “greater than the other” ? Did they roll the dice, flip a coin, draw straws to see which one would win? E.g. IF you & I are are equal but we both decide or agree there must be a chain of command, either you or I must be # 1, how would we decide this matter? Personally, I KNOW why ONE & ONLY ONE of the “Elohim” WAS ALWAYS “the CHIEF”. Nobody wants to respond unless he/she feels he/she can show me the error of my ways which forces me to think hardly anyone REALLY CARES about,at least some truth. Yeshua had the same problem tho, so maybe I should feel honored.

       
  29. messianicdruid

    October 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

    The idea of vicarious human sacrifice is opposed by the law of YHWH:

    The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
    Deuteronomy 24:16

    Also, justice and righteousness are translations of the same Hebrew word. Vicarious human sacrifice is the antithesis of justice and the antithesis of righteousness.

    There is a tension in creation:

    “Children were not to be punished for the sins of their father. And yet this is precisely what God did with us. The fact that all of Adam’s children are born mortal proves that we are paying for a sin committed by our father (Romans 5:12). Adam’s children were put to death for the sin of their father Adam. Did God not know that this was unjust? Of course He did! After all, He had prohibited such injustice by His own law, revealed to Moses and confirmed by Ezekiel.

    This raises the most basic question about the justice of God. Death was imposed upon us outside our will, and this is the root cause of all personal sins committed after Adam’s original sin. We are being held liable for a sin of our father, Adam. We cannot hide this issue and hope it goes unnoticed by God’s critics. Nor can we theologize it away after God clearly takes the credit for holding us liable.

    In dealing with this problem, we must first know that He is just, and have faith that He knows what He is doing. We must align ourselves with His plan, rather than attempt to alter His plan to fit what we think He should have done.

    In looking at the way God imputed Adam’s sin to his descendants, and the divine law which prohibits such behavior, we do not hesitate to call God’s action a “temporary injustice,” which is the direct cause of the Tension in the history of creation. Tension is the result of injustice or disharmony while it is yet unresolved. It has many applications. When a nation wrongs another, tension is set up, often leading to war. When an individual wrongs another, tension is in the air until restitution is made. Tension always demands a resolution.”

    http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/creations-jubilee/chapter-13-the-tension-in-creation/

     
    • messianicdruid

      October 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

      Can YOU forgive God?

       
      • Don

        October 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        messianicdruid
        October 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

        Re:Can YOU forgive God?

        NDDT seems to have that ability by some of his antichrist comments.
        WHO specifically is, YOU ?

         
      • sem

        October 25, 2012 at 10:56 PM

        ~~~HMMM~~~

         
  30. Anon4fun

    October 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

    Don,

    {You are my mentor.}

    Are you sure you can afford my consulting fee?

    NDT,

    {The idea of vicarious human sacrifice is opposed by the law of YHWH:

    The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16}

    The intended recipient of this commandment was Israel. God himself was not bound by it. In general, the source of the law, i.e. the sovereign, cannot be bound by the law, since law (as opposed to contract, etc.) is only binding from a higher authority. Through the sacrifice of God’s own Son for the benefit of man, the process beginning with Abraham not sacrificing Isaac was complete. Before the living God separated a people, the sacrifice of man’s own offspring for the gods was more or less universal. At the crucifixion, sacrifice itself was made obsolete. This is why the veil of the Temple was rent.

    As for the descendants of Adam bearing the consequences of original sin, this is because Adam corrupted his legacy as part of the fall. We are not judged for the sin in Eden. Rather, the earthly form which we inherited from Adam was corrupted before we received it. Fortunately, we now have access to the greater blessing of heavenly life through Jesus Christ.

     
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM

      To: Anon4fun

      Re:Are you sure you can afford my consulting fee?

      First of all & foremost, the most important thing is this: Do you have a license to “collect fees”? I do not like to “bargain” with the “unlicensed” as it is irrefutable proof of incompetency. I’m sure you agree. I bet you there are more licensed drivers involved in accidents than unlicensed drivers. Wanna bet ? See what I mean about the unlicensed is irrefutable proof of incompetency !! ??

       
  31. Don

    October 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

    messianicdruid October 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

    Excellent comment !!!
    Re: …. tension is in the air until restitution is made. Tension always demands a resolution.”

    “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

    This is one of the seemingly impossible things for me to live with & I TRY HARD. It has kept me from doing whyat most people would consider criminal even tho I feel in my heart it is “righteous indignation.”

     
    • messianicdruid

      October 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

      I should have replied to NDT rather than pasting his statement. There is much more {at the link} that I did not feel should be pasted …

       
  32. Don

    October 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    Adask
    October 24, 2012 at 5:32 AM

    Good question. God and the Christ?

    Oh NO!!! PLEASE!! Don’t even think for a split second it could remotely include the “ONE” who emptied himself of ALL his Glory, voluntarily allowed his “Father” to transform him into a flesh & blood being to bleed to death for YOU too,Alfred.
    Also,DISCARD the scriptures that say: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” AND,

    For by Him (The Christ) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. (HIM MEANS & IS THE CHRIST)

    Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

    being

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      ONE is a lonely number AIN”T IT ?

       
      • deb

        November 5, 2012 at 12:01 AM

        @ONE is a lonely number…
        One is indivisible

         
  33. Don

    October 24, 2012 at 1:07 PM

    Jethro, “paralysis by analysis” Very thought provoking. Thanks, This makes a grand total of two things I have learned in my entire time on this “Alfred Adask Law” site. The other thing I learned was what “lol” meant. I really didn’t know what LOL meant & I had a hard time getting anyone to tell me.In fact,no one did. I kinda figured it out by myself by reading other comments.I guess I generated lots of “LOLs by my comments

    1st John 4:3
    “…..and every spirit which says Jesus is not OF God is the spirit of antichrist,…..”

    I haven’t seen Alfred come right out & say this directly YET, but some of his comments are extremely close to it & I say this out of concern for him.I still, will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not knowingly doing or saying this but there is definitely a mental block, at best. Then again,I have more FLAWS,etc, than probably anyone else.
    Thanks again Jethro

     
    • Adask

      October 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      I don’t deny that the Christ is “of God”. In fact, if you’ve actually read what I’ve written, you should be able to see that I say it’s so.

      But it seems to me that those who say Christ is God are implicitly denying that the Christ is “of God”.

      See my point? I can truly say that “Alfred is the son of Alex.” But if I say, Alfred is Alex,” I’ve just denied that Alfred is of Alex.

      From that perspective, if it’s true that “every spirit which says Jesus is not OF God is the spirit of the antichrist,” then it seems that if anyone in this debate is motivated by the spirit of the antichrist, it may be those who claim that the Christ is God rather than of God.

       
      • Don

        October 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM

        GODDAMN IT !!! GOD is ONLY a TITLE. The WORD G-O-D is only a Title. The “Elohim” ARE a

        FAMILY !!! Father,Son, AT LEAST two “Family members” I have no idea how many members are in this family UNIT but I KNOW there are at least TWO (2)

         
      • messianicdruid

        October 24, 2012 at 1:57 PM

        What if you said “Alfred is of Adask”? Then you could say Alfred is Adask. This would not be anti-adask.

         
      • Adask

        October 24, 2012 at 2:18 PM

        You mean “Alfred is of the family of Adask”. But “Alfred” could be “Adask” if he were the only remaining “Adask”.

         
      • Don

        October 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM

        YOUR “But it seems to me” conclusions in this particular are incorrect & this is as gentle as I can say it or know how to put it. There are other “commentators” e.g. Timmy, Mr.Lee, & a few others who have repeatedly said what at least SOME of us understand in like manner.

        ONE of the “at least” two (2) beings created the universe, That being became flesh & blood with the “help” of a being “superior” to him, called, The Father. There WAS & still is a “chain of command.”

        What your question should be is: HOW is it that one of the “Elohim” became & is superior to all of the rest of the “Elohim.” That answer has been explained too but you did not have TIME to read it. You spent a lot of time “creating the beginning of this subject matter” but because of your overflowing full plate workload, there is just not enough TIME do do everything you have brought upon yourself. If there is anyway,anyone on this blog can help you with your workload problems,make a few suggestions.WE are supposed to be here to HELP each other aren’t we?? If it will be of help that I not make anymore comments, say so. It will be honored in less than the twinkling of a eye. Sorry I could not make this any “shorter.”

         
      • Adask

        October 24, 2012 at 2:30 PM

        It would be nice if we could all help each other all of the time. In that vein, I wonder when anyone will help me write any of these articles? Insofar as I write the articles without constant assistance, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that you folks might be able to comment or not without my omni-present assistance.

        As to making more or less comments on this blog, it’s a free country. Nobody called you, nobody compelled you, nobody is chasing you away. Suit yourself.

         
      • Mr. Lee

        October 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM

        If I’m a Man made in God’s image aren’t i of God too? The Bible says he formed me in my mothers womb and He knew me from before time began. I’m not saying I’m Christ though.

         
  34. sem

    October 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    Short answer:

    No.

    He stands strongest who stands most alone. No people…No Betrayal.

    The Sun is not lonely. The Moon is not lonely. Your vehicle is not lonely. The amoeba is not lonely.

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM

      Re: He stands strongest who stands most alone.

      IF what you say is true, then I am at least one of the strongest. I like being alone but I don’t like being lonely

       
      • sem

        October 24, 2012 at 10:57 PM

        There is a difference.

         
  35. Tony

    October 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

    Hi Jethro,

    You wrote:
    Neither. Both co-existed “in the beginning”. See John 1.

    John 8:44
    You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

    I believe we are called to compare spiritual with spiritual in order to ascertain truth.

    If you necessitate what you have, Lucifer also existed then.

    Tony

     
    • Jethro

      October 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM

      “The beginning” in relation to God is not the same “beginning” in relation to angels, fallen or not. The angels were created (Psalm 148:2,5); God is uncreated (Psalm 90:2). Therefore Lucifer did not exist in the same “in the beginning” as referred to in John 1.

       
      • Don

        October 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM

        Jethro,et al,
        Re: Therefore Lucifer did not exist in the same “in the beginning” as referred to in John 1.

        Absolutely. There were “several beginnings.” Some of the translations could have certainly been plainer. The “translations” ARE NOT inspired of/from ANY member of the “Elohim Family.” There is only one thing that matters anyway and it is summed up in the 10 commandments. This is all & the only thing that is important. For those who do their best to honor this “LAW” everything else will “eventually” be made clear as crystal.

         
      • Tony

        October 24, 2012 at 7:52 PM

        You are resorting to the logical fallacy known as circularity.

         
      • Jethro

        October 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM

        I’m afraid I do not see any circular fallacies in my statement, Tony. You’ll have to explain that further.

        However, I do see a Composition fallacy in your statement, which is why I had to disagree with your conclusion.

         
  36. messianicdruid

    October 24, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    “WHO specifically is, YOU ?”

    Anyone who finds fault with God. Anyone who thinks they “could have done it better”. Anyone who thinks God sinned. Anyone who thinks God has been unjust, either to themselves or to the human race. Anyone who feels God is being vauge and should be more forthcoming about what He is doing. Anyone who blames God for his predicament. Anyone who blames God for the hand he has been dealt.

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM

      To:messianicdruid

      Re: Anyone who blames God for the hand he has been dealt.

      He,Yahshua,dealt me a “Royal Straight Flush.”

       
  37. Tony

    October 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

    Hi messianic,

    You wrote:
    How could the concept of ‘older’ or ‘younger’ apply to beings which are not subject to time, unless they subject themselves to it in order to demonstrate something we could not appreciate otherwise?

    I do not think along the lines of a timeless existence as my intellectual capacity is too limited.

    I hope God is OK with that! :-)

    Tony

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

      Tony.
      I hope God is OK with that! :-)

      He is. He knows & remembers that we are “but dust.” Actually, I believe he has a great sense of humor & I think you at least brought a smile to his heart & face when you said what you did.

       
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 8:35 PM

      Tony,
      Re: ” my intellectual capacity is too limited.

      Mine is too!! Sometimes the modulus of elasticity of the intellectual capacity of the mind & brain is just to insufficient to comphrehend the trying times at hand, e.g. the never ending & incomphrensible comments of most of the “others.” about who “God” is & is not.I don’t know if “God” is laughing but I know for sure Satan is. Actually, I think “God” is probably sad to some degree.

       
    • sem

      October 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM

      It’s hard to be humble…when you’re perfect in every way.

       
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 12:12 AM

        It’s hard to be humble…when you’re perfect in every way.

        Tell me about it !!

         
  38. messianicdruid

    October 24, 2012 at 4:45 PM

    “You mean “Alfred is of the family of Adask”. But “Alfred” could be “Adask” if he were the only remaining “Adask”.”

    Alfred is of Adask, Alex is of Adask. They are both Adask.

     
    • Anon4fun

      October 24, 2012 at 5:14 PM

      Alfred and Alex can each refer to the other as “Adask,” so the analogy does not apply.

      Jesus calls God “my God,” but God calls Jesus “my Son.”

       
      • Don

        October 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

        Jesus also called, my God, my Father. It seems you, like Alfred, are saying my God & my Father are 2 different entities/beings. IF this is true, the “my Father was & is superior to “my God.” Yahshua, aka The Christ, prayed to the “Father” asking him (the Father) to “renew” the glory he HAD with HIM (the Father) BEFORE the Earth/world even came into existence. NOW CHEW ON THAT !!! Sensitive ears & all.

         
      • Anon4fun

        October 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM

        The point is, Jesus calls God “My God,” whereas we never see God call Jesus “my God.” This makes perfect sense considering Jesus is the Son of God and therefore logically excluded from being the same entity as God.

        In general terms: “A is the father of B” implies “A is not B”

        By the way, Hebrews 1:8 is no exception. This verse quotes Psalm 45:6 which address the king, probably Solomon. In those days, kings, like certain other types of men, were called “gods” (elohiym).

        Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

        Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

         
  39. Mr. Lee

    October 24, 2012 at 6:29 PM

    Answer me this, why is “The Christ” called Lord?

    I argue that it is Him that has “ultimate sovereignty”, because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

    Revelation17:14
    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

    κύριος

    1) he to whom a person or thing(or man made in God’s image) belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord

    a) the possessor and disposer of a thing

    1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

    2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

    b) is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master

    c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

    Strong’s G2962 – kyrios

     
    • Anon4fun

      October 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM

      The status of Jesus as “Lord of lords, and King of kings” is explained by:

      Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

      Who gave Jesus this power? Obviously someone who both had that power to give and was not Jesus himself, namely God.

       
      • Mr. Lee

        October 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM

        What does that make Jesus then, if He has all the Sovereign Power in heaven and earth? If God gave Him this power does that mean that God doesn’t have it anymore and Jesus does?

         
      • messianicdruid

        October 24, 2012 at 7:21 PM

        Alfred gave Alex the keys to the car.

        Who gave Alex the keys to the car? Obviously someone who had the keys to the car and it was not Alex, namely Adask.

         
      • sem

        October 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM

        Very meaningful reply.

         
  40. messianicdruid

    October 24, 2012 at 7:16 PM

    “By the way, Hebrews 1:8 is no exception. This verse quotes Psalm 45:6 which address the king, probably Solomon. In those days, kings, like certain other types of men, were called “gods” (elohiym).”

    Psalm 45:6 “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…”

    The writer of Hebrews was obviously applying this statement to Jesus Christ in the New Testament era. Solomon {as an elohim} was the initial fulfillment and Jesus Christ the ultimate fulfillment.

    “The point is, Jesus calls God “My God,” whereas we never see God call Jesus “my God.””

    The Father does not need to call Jesus “my God” for Him to be part of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit, through the inspired writer calls Him God. Don’t confuse the chain of command; Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

     
  41. Don

    October 24, 2012 at 7:30 PM

    Anon4fun
    Is Alfred aka, Al? Is Alfred aka, Big Al? Is Alfred aka, Alfred Adask? No problem with those questions,right?

    Is Eloi aka “my God”? Is Eloi aka “Father”? Is Eloi aka “righteous Father”? Is Eloi aka “O Father” as in John 17?
    Thanks for letting me know that A is not B. really appreciate that. I knew that B was not A but I never thought about A not being B. Once again,Thanks.

     
  42. Anon4fun

    October 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM

    Mr. Lee:

    {What does that make Jesus then, if He has all the Sovereign Power in heaven and earth? If God gave Him this power does that mean that God doesn’t have it anymore and Jesus does?}

    Jesus has this power at the right hand of God, with all that implies.

    messianicdruid:

    {The Father does not need to call Jesus “my God” for Him to be part of the Godhead.}

    The Trinity concept of “Godhead” isn’t in the Bible either. The term itself is translated from a different word in the original text each time it appears.

    {The Holy Spirit, through the inspired writer calls Him God.}

    No, it’s the translator who called Jesus “God.” The inspired original text of Hebrews 1:8 calls Jesus “theos,” which, like its counterpart “elohiym” in parallel passage Psalm 45:6 describing the king of Israel, was frequently applied to men.

    Don:

    The logic really is that simple. If Jesus refers to someone as “my God” (whichever word in the original text is used), and you believe Jesus is God, then you must conclude that God has a God (using the same word as before in the original text).

     
    • Don

      October 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM

      John1:23 > The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means ‘God is with us.'”

      Explain the words above then, as apparently they do not mean what it plainly says.

       
    • messianicdruid

      October 24, 2012 at 9:40 PM

      “…describing the king of Israel, was frequently applied to men.”

      I’m not aware of an occasion where the term “theos” is applied to men, other then Jesus.

       
  43. Don

    October 24, 2012 at 9:44 PM

    To whoever it may concern,

    John 1:23 > The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means ‘God is with us.’”

    In what sense could this name Immanuel be applied to Yahshua,aka Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly one of the Elohim Gods? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man, and yet, in the very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most high God? In what sense, then, is Christ,God With Us? Yahshua is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation. – God united to our nature – God with man – God in man. – God with us, by his continual protection. – God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit – in the holy sacrament – in the preaching of his word – in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us, and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity. AND,

    This is just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him–
    speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand,
    and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something
    quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture–and the result is disaster for them.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NLT)

    Fear not “little flock” It is your Father’s PLEASURE to give YOU his kingdom aka HIS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. (My EMPHASIS)

     
    • sem

      October 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM

      Funny you should mention, “The Twisting of Words…”!

       
      • Don

        October 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM

        A Kingdom is a Government, IDIOT !!

         
  44. Don

    October 25, 2012 at 12:29 AM

    Mr. Lee
    Re: They both have always been that’s the hard part.
    I
    f the above statement is true, how did one gain superiority over the other? Why did Yeshua say, The Father is greater than I am? Did they flip a coin, draw straws, roll the dice?

     
  45. Don

    October 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM

    Re:Very meaningful reply.
    How would you know?

     
  46. Mr. Lee

    October 25, 2012 at 2:40 AM

    Satan Tempts Jesus

    Luke 4:10 For it is written:

    ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,
    To keep you,’ 11 and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
    Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”

    12 And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ”

    Notice it doesn’t say “you shall not tempt the Son of God”. The implication is that tempting Jesus is the same as tempting God.

    Also notice the spelling Lord Lord new testament= Jesus, LORD old testament= YHWH

     
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 11:10 AM

      YES Mr Lee >>October 25, 2012 at 2:40 AM <<Your message

      Yes,Yes,Yes. I am absolutely dumbfounded as to why the superior intelligent minds on this "Adask law" site cannot "SEE" what apparently we with little formal education can. We have Father & Son terms used repeatedly in the scriptures & STILL those with superior intelligence cannot SEE the "Family "tie". We have "God the Son" & God the Father" Oh well. There is a song that says we'll understand it all bye & bye or maybe it's by & by. One thing also, it's going to be bye bye for the majority after they have to admit they understand. I hope I am not in that by by group.

       
  47. Anon4fun

    October 25, 2012 at 3:35 AM

    Don:

    Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

    God clearly had to be with them in order for a virgin to be with child. This does not mean the child himself is God.

    messianicdruid:

    {I’m not aware of an occasion where the term “theos” is applied to men, other then Jesus.}

    That “theos” can apply to men is just a fact of the word’s definition. For example, one addressed a judge, among other dignitaries, as “theos” in the post-Hellenistic world, where the New Testament was written. This has turned into “your honor” and “your worship” today. As for men aside from Jesus being called “theos” in the Bible, I recall one instance:

    John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

    Which quotes:

    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

    Here “elohiym” is used to refer to men, as in Psalm 45:6 which is another parallel of a “theos” verse.

    Mr. Lee:

    Luke 4:10-12 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    It was God who was potentially tempted here, because it was God who would send the angels to rescue Jesus.

    The phrase “the Lord thy God” is interesting. Do we find it elsewhere in this chapter, so we might better understand its meaning? Yes, we do:

    Luke 4:7-8 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

    Jesus refuses on the basis that he must worship God only. Since Jesus does not mean worship of himself, we now have further confirmation that Jesus is not God. This verse references:

    Deuteronomy 6:13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

    Which is about God.

     
    • Mr. Lee

      October 25, 2012 at 3:43 AM

      Who is Jesus Christ then?

       
      • Eric Christenson

        January 8, 2015 at 2:02 AM

        Mr. Lee
        October 25, 2012 at 3:43 AM
        Who is Jesus Christ then?

        13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 16

        Mr Lee, this is what the scripture says, but, you have the choice of believing or not believing what the scripture says.

         
    • Anon4fun

      October 25, 2012 at 3:52 AM

      John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

      Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

       
    • messianicdruid

      October 25, 2012 at 6:39 AM

      “That “theos” can apply to men is just a fact of the word’s definition.”

      This, of course, depends on who is doing the defining. The term from John 10:34, applied to men, is “elohim”, as in g-o-d-s; ones who make rules for others. IOW judges and magistrates. Divinity is not being inferred {or conferred} to them.

      “Theos” is a term of divinity, *God capitalised*. Still a rulemaker for others, but of a higher nature. A companion verse to Psalm 45:6 is 93:2:

      “Your throne was established long ago {or “prepared from eternity”} ; you are from all eternity.” Christ was set up and anointed as King from everlasting; he had a kingdom appointed and prepared for him so early; and his throne, which is prepared in the heavens, is an established one; it is for ever and ever; his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; of his government, and the increase of it, there is no end: Obviously not talking to Solomon or any earthly king, judge or magistrate.

      Your attempt to make “elohim” and “theos” equivalent fails.

       
      • Don

        October 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

        To:messianicdruid
        Re your message on October 25, 2012 at 6:39 AM

        The more clear you are the more confusing it seems to be for those with superior intellect. I am not smart at all & yet even I understand what you say Thank you !!

         
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

      Anon4fun
      “Emmanuel”, which being interpreted is, God with us.

      Emmanuel, means >God with us.< I have an Uncle that calls me "Bailey". e.g. HEY Bailey.Now,if Alfred Adask has a son, for example, & Alfred OR his son is visiting you & your telephone rings, & you answer & say to whoever is calling, Look,let me call you back, Adask is with me right now & we only have a couple of minutes to get something important taken care of. The caller says ok I understand, but which Adask is with you? Is it Adask the Father,or Adask the Son. Anon4 fun says to the caller who it is specifically. E.G. (Adask(God) the Father OR Adask(God) the Son. TWO seperate beings with the SAME "Title"

       
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      You, Anon4 fun say: “God clearly had to be with them in order for a virgin to be with child. This does not mean the child himself is God.”

      How can Adask Jr be the son of Adask Sr & not be an Adask ?

       
  48. messianicdruid

    October 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    Don: Could be, on this subject, you have nothing to unlearn.

     
  49. Anon4fun

    October 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

    messianicdruid:

    {This, of course, depends on who is doing the defining.}

    The post-Hellenistic culture of the first century AD did the defining. Greek was their universal language. This is the language in which the New Testament was written. In the Greek of those times, “theos” applied to men.

    {…Obviously not talking to Solomon or any earthly king, judge or magistrate.}

    Maybe your erroneous conclusion would be less “obvious” if you actually read the relevant section. What should be obvious is that it is written to their king. Why? Because the text explicitly says so. The king addressed is probably Solomon. Here it is, with “elohim” to “God” translations, which we see reference both God and the king, in bold:

    Psalm 45

    1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. 2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. 3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. 4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. 5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

    6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. 9 Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

    10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. 12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour. 13 The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. 14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. 15 With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king’s palace. 16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. 17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

    (end quote)

    The parallel to verse 6 above, with the translation of “theos” in bold:

    Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    This parallel means Jesus was to also take the throne of David.

    Don:

    {How can Adask Jr be the son of Adask Sr & not be an Adask?}

    We don’t find Jesus referred to as God Jr. anywhere in scripture. We do find Jesus called the Son of God. This would compare to Alfred being called “Son of Alex” in your example.

     
    • sem

      October 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM

      Very well articulated! Smooth.

       
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 2:57 AM

        Very well articulated! Smooth.

        You must be referring to a prior comment you made. I would like to read it & study it. Where is this very well articulated smooth comment you made?

         
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM

      Is Adask “Jr” superior to or subordinate to Adask Sr? Why did Yeshua say the his Father was “greater” than HE,Yeshua was”? (John 14:28)
      Even so,does this not at least imply Two (2) seperate beings? How can YOU be greater than yourself?

      Exodus 3:14 “God” said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”

      Mark 14:61: Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

      Mark 14:62: “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

      (Read for yourself what happened next.That’s when the do do hit the fan)

       
      • Don

        October 25, 2012 at 8:27 PM

        Separate not seperate. Sorry for the incorrect spelling.

         
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 2:51 AM

      Re: “We don’t find Jesus referred to as God Jr…….”

      Not to be nosy, who is we? I am now beginning to think you have a spirit guide.

      Jr is used chiefly to distinguish “a son with the same given name as his father” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)

      This is the sense in which I, Don used the term.

      Is Yeshua YOUR Messiah, Yes,No, or none of your business is a sufficient answer.

       
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 3:01 AM

        Excuse me, I meant to ask, who are we? Who comprises the “We” ? I is tired?

         
  50. Don

    October 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM

    P.S., I’m in the process of moving to another State of the Union. I probably won’t have time or be able to respond to any more comments before Monday or Tuesday of next week.

    If you want free housing in “The Land of Enchantment” (Witchcraft) You have it. The “Venue” is the same only worse (Regional Venue) than most other places. Have you heard about the State of Jefferson.? If I can be of any kind of assistance call me collect, “station to station”. 505-865-9293

     
  51. Don

    October 25, 2012 at 8:00 PM

    Nay; I shall elaborate:

    Just more of your apple/orange mixture a.k.a. eloquent legal sophistry a.k.a. eloquent gobble-de-gook, a.k.a. UNPRINCIPLED LEGAL METAPHYSICAL FLIMFLAM GARBAGE

     
    • sem

      October 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

      Don

      October 25, 2012 at 1:08 AM

      Adam was a being & Eve was another being,TWO beings,but they were ONE also..”..& they shall become ONE flesh. Genesis 2:24

      sem says:”Becoming ONE flesh” speaks to reproduction of a new born.”

      What Book,Chapter & verse of Scripture is your comment above taken from? I believe it is just another one of your superior intellectual capacity thoughts.

      Prove me wrong by saying what Book,Chapter & verse of Scripture says this: “Becoming ONE flesh” speaks to reproduction of a new born.”

      sem

      October 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM

      I have nothing to prove. It is there…for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

      sem

      October 25, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      Nay; I shall elaborate:

      Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, whence…’after his own kind’. The developement of the individual retraces the evolution of his kind. Hence, “Be Ye FRUITFUL and Multiply.”

      Would you care to expand on this. Afterall, “a fool can tell a wise man something.” As it is written.

       
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 12:32 AM

        sem
        October 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM

        sem.you say: I have nothing to prove. It is there
        Where is there?
        Do you mean you have nothing to prove anything, or, do you mean you do not have anything to prove nothing?

        Where is there? I know you think the reason I am here is because I’m not all there,but, and, I admit, it is hard to prove “nothing.” Once again,where is “there” ?

         
      • Don

        October 26, 2012 at 2:35 AM

        Sem says:Would you care to expand on this. Afterall, “a fool can tell a wise man something.” As it is written.(cut & paste of sem’s words, verbatim, no “leeching” intended)

        Then start telling ! However you,sem saying you have nothing to prove. It is there. This is foolish & arrogant & pompous. I don’t know if you are saying you are the fool or the wise man but many of your comments prove you are a wiseass for those to have the eyes to see even IF he/she is DEAF.

         
  52. Anon4fun

    October 25, 2012 at 8:56 PM

    Adask: “P.S., I’m in the process of moving to another State of the Union.”

    Whew, it’s a good thing you didn’t forget yourself and say you were moving to another “state.” That would have compromised the entire blog and required you to obliterate its contents from the interwebs to preserve your status. Sort of like how Gene Hackman had to blow up the building he lived in because Will Smith made a phone call.

     
    • Don

      October 25, 2012 at 9:34 PM

      Re:moving to another “state.”

      That’s probably what I would have said & I KNOW sem gets a “jolt” out of that. Probably lickin his lips with glee.

      Hey Anon4fun, guess what!!? I’m having some serious problems with my eyes. Went to an eye doctor & to make a long story short, I was refused treatment because I could not provide a SSN. I offered to pay in advance but that was unacceptable too ! The mark of the beast is making it harder & harder to exist much less live without it. More good news for sem though.

       
  53. Don

    October 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM

    Now that I know you know

    Only duh shadow no fo sho.

     
  54. sem

    October 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

    It is becoming clear (almost obvious) that you are leeching, so as to SEEM to be with it. I would suggest that perhaps one should be one’s self; however, if leeching is involved, to say such would be accusatory.

     
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 12:21 AM

      It is becoming clear (almost obvious) that you are leeching
      I think Joe Biden was accused of that also.

      Once again, why, in your opinion, did John Hanson, not abolish slavery? Being, as you say, he was a black man, it would seem that would be his # 1 priority. Maybe he didn’t have enough time? I don’t know,but I thought you might know.

       
  55. Don

    October 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM

    sem, you,say: the Exoddus.

    What is that? i.e,. the Exoddus.

     
  56. Don

    October 26, 2012 at 3:18 AM

    Very meaningful reply.

    YAYUS ! IT SHO WO !! 1 uddduh behsuns yayutt. It sho nuff wo. It sho wo dat faw sho. (no leeching intended) I just try to communicate with people on their level

     
  57. Don

    October 26, 2012 at 4:27 AM

    “Becoming ONE flesh” speaks to reproduction of a new born.

    You are off your rocker. Crawl back under your rock & get back in/on your rocker. (no leeching intended).

     
  58. Don

    October 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM

    sem, what does TENCE mean. You know I am an IDIOT, you have said so, but I do want to understand & be smart like you are. I also asked you to explain what Exoddus means as well as MANY MANY MANY MORE of the words you use, but you never answer my questions and You leave me no choice but to think that you don’t want me to be smart like you are. WHY? You’re not selfish are you? That’s hard for me to believe, BABY. You have called me that also,ie BABY. Actually, I like that word, & I LOVE my dog. Her name is Baby. She doesn’t have a surname “tho.”

     
    • Don

      October 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM

      sem,more proof that I am an IDIOT is,I did not put a question mark after my question of: sem, what does TENCE mean? I did that deliberately because I thought you,sem,might respond & bring at least that to my attention. Understand, BABY?

       
  59. sem

    October 27, 2012 at 1:06 PM

    Fifty percent of the solution is knowing what the problem is.

     
    • Don

      October 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM

      sem
      October 27, 2012 at 1:06 PM
      Re:Fifty percent of the solution is knowing what the problem is.
      Bipolar

      sem, keep trying. Never give up. I still have faith that you can do it. 51% puts you in control.
      I believe you can achieve the other 50% you need. Just keep trying.

       
  60. Timmy

    October 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

    Water manifests in at least three forms: liquid, solid (ice) and gas (vapor). Three states. Separate. Distinct. Radically different in appearance and properties…. yet all the same in nature and substance.

    Al, you might enjoy the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. A classic and very well thought out.

     
  61. greg

    November 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

    As we contemplate the Godhead we must be careful to not weaken nor negate one passage with another. If we try to understand the Godhead by fleshly logic and reason, we will forget that it is by revelation and even that is to be received by faith. Remember that God in Christ is the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

    Therefore, Jesus had and has a terrestrial and a celestial body. When he was walking the earth as a man, he limited himself to terrestrial limits, yet appropriating his celestial powers from on high by way of obedience to what he heard the Holy Spirit saying.

    An analogy helps to understand. I have a mind, I have a body, and I have a spirit, but I am one person. I cannot do with my three parts what God can do with his three parts. His terrestrial body was used to lay down his life, and his celestial body was used to take it again.

    All scripture that we interpret as three persons is only our flesh trying to satisfy our limited understanding that demands a logical explanation. Nowhere does scripture say that three persons make the Godhead. Rather, every seemingly conflicting scripture regarding the Father and the Son only make logic and reason more elusive.

    Examples: “Show us the Father . . .,” I have been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14: 8+9). This is verified by Isaiah 6:9: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given (prophesying Jesus’ birth), and his name shall be wonderful, counselor, prince of peace, the mighty God, the everlasting Father.”

    Then one would ask, what about “My Father is greater than I”? (see John 14:28). Does the latter passage negate or weaken the first passage? Well, my mind is greater than my body because my mind controls my body. Jesus said, …The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do:” (John 5:19). My mind tells my body what to do and what to say. God can do what he wants. He doesn’t have to answer to anyone because he is perfect and holy. God is sovereign.

     
    • NDT

      November 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

      “If we try to understand the Godhead by fleshly logic and reason, we will forget that it is by revelation and even that is to be received by faith.”

      In other words, Christian religion is about belief, not truth.

      Come now, and let us reason together, saith YHWH: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
      Isaiah 1:18

       
      • Don

        November 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

        To: NDT
        I wanted to stay in touch with “greg” because I consider him my Brother. But, when I ask a question that will only take a simple yes or no to answer & I get a sermon for an answer but no answer to my question in the sermon, it makes me think he wants to play mind games.On the other hand, maybe it’s me not understanding something. I already knew what he wrote below.

        ( He don’t want anyone stealing your stuff)

        If greg had answered my simple question but still wanted to play mind games, I would have gone along with it, e.g., greg also said: Thou shalt not commit adultery. ( He don’t want anyone raping your wife)

        I would have responded: Does this include,even if its “mutual consent? ”

        It doesn’t appear greg is going to answer your question either. This says a lot doesn’t it ?

         
      • NDT

        November 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

        @Don,

        Perhaps the reason that Greg didn’t respond to you is that he didn’t know what the point was that you were trying to make.

         
      • Don

        November 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM

        To: NDT

        @Perhaps the reason that Greg didn’t respond to you is that he didn’t know what the point was that you were trying to make.

        I do have this problem with at least 95% of the “Respondents.” So it must be something I am doing wrong.

        Has he,greg,responded YET to your question? If so,it did not/has appeared on my end. So without more,all I can ask is,could it be he didn’t know the point you were trying to make?

         
      • NDT

        November 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

        @Don

        “could it be he didn’t know the point you were trying to make?”

        Possibly. To be clear, my point is that Christianity, as the official religion of the Roman empire, serves the power of Rome (as expressed as civil government) and does not serve the truth other than by indirect means.

        To support this claim I refer to the incompatibility of the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement with the Hebrew law which equates justice with virtue, and to the conflict between James the Just (as leader of the first century disciples according to Hebrew law) and Paul of Tarsus (as self-appointed apostle to the Gentiles and adversary of the law according to Pharasaic tradition).

         
      • Don

        November 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

        @Possibly.
        Oh, ok. I might be on the verge here of learning something “new” for the first time in my life,i.e. from you,but I need to ask you a few questions first. What “Bible” do you use as your source of spiritual knowledge? Please don’t answer by giving me a sermon.

         
      • greg

        November 3, 2012 at 8:22 PM

        Don, I will get back to you soon.

         
      • NDT

        November 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM

        @Don

        “What “Bible” do you use as your source of spiritual knowledge?”

        I don’t rely on any single book. I draw information about the relationship between man and deity from Hebrew, Muslim, Christian, Gnostic, and other texts and then attempt to find a rational explanation for the differences. Knowledge of spirit comes from experience that is grounded in knowledge of the nature of deity.

         
      • Don

        November 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

        NDT
        Re: Your message of/on November 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM
        Thank you for your honesty.
        Shalom.

         
  62. Don

    November 2, 2012 at 7:40 PM

    @All scripture that we interpret…”

    Are you saying that you interpret scripture? IF so,what does the scripture mean wherein it is written:”…Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. … ”

    My question, once again is: Do you,greg interpret scripture?

    My answer as for me, is, I, Don do not, in case you asked me

     
    • greg

      November 2, 2012 at 9:01 PM

      Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. ( He made us, he deserves our loyalty )
      Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
      Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
      ( Including grace abuse ).
      Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
      Honor thy father and thy mother.
      Thou shalt not kill. ( He don’t want you killed)
      Thou shalt not commit adultery. ( He don’t want anyone raping your wife)
      Thou shalt not steal. ( He don’t want anyone stealing your stuff)
      Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
      Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his oxen, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

       
      • Don

        November 2, 2012 at 10:11 PM

        Your post did not answer my question. I did not ask for a sermon.

         
  63. greg

    November 2, 2012 at 10:32 PM

    would you consider That comprehension or interpretation

     
    • Don

      November 2, 2012 at 11:12 PM

      @ greg
      @ November 2, 2012 at 10:32 PM
      @ would you consider That comprehension or interpretation

      Comprehension,IF your statement is a question. I also have enough sense to begin a sentence with a capital letter in the first word, & put a question mark at the end after I ask a question or insert a period at the end of a sentence. I also “C” where you are headed so this is ALL I have to say 2 U.

       
      • greg

        November 2, 2012 at 11:17 PM

        K.

         
  64. greg

    November 2, 2012 at 11:03 PM

    Don, how bout you do the other five?

     
  65. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 2:29 AM

    You ask,If salt looses its’saltiness, what is it good for?
    Pepperoni Pizza, I thought you knew that.

     
  66. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 3:16 PM

    deb
    November 4, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    This message is from the REAL “deb.”
    Everybody should print,frame,& place this message on the wall,the one behind each computer monitor.

     
    • deb

      November 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

      Don,
      @everybody should print…

      that’s just how I view it

       
      • Eric Christenson

        January 8, 2015 at 1:41 AM

        deb says, Messiah can not have Adam’s blood in his veins–Adam’s blood is impure.

        deb, IF we all can be traced back to the same “DUDES,” as Phil Robertson says, Adam & Eve, as Yahshua/Yeshua can be through Mary, his physical Mother, then you are saying the Messiah’s blood was impure, & I am positive you, deb, do not believe that. I don’t think the transgression of Adam & Eve affected the blood, I think the transgression affected their minds. AND we inherited this EFFECT but we can OVERCOME this downward pull, IF we REALLY WANT TOO, with the HELP of our heavenly Father, of course, OR, we can at least TRY.

         
  67. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM

    @THE PURE BLOOD OF YAHWEH

    Anything YHWH creates is pure,at least I think so. I don’t think YHWH creates anything unpure. Therefore, Adam’s blood was pure at “creation” He, Adam corrupted it by disobedience.I am aware that the” life” is in the blood & I believe Adam would be alive today IF he had not trangressed. Anyway, it is a joy to see the eye opening messages from “deb” the “Real McCoy.”

     
  68. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    NDT
    November 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM
    Sorry my friend, deb is not wrong. Tell me, if you know, what was “DDT” used for?

     
    • NDT

      November 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

      @Don November 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM

      “Sorry my friend, deb is not wrong”

      She is wrong because she attempted to rebut my post of October 23, 2012 at 12:34 AM by quoting Hebrews 9:22: “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”.

      Her argument fails because Hebrews 9:22 is false. My post of November 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM demonstrated this by showing that in the Mosaic law a sin offering did not necessarily involve bloodshed. Also, I quoted the gospels which gave an example of forgiveness without bloodshed.

      The point of my post of November 4 was that the new covenant established by YHWH (Jeremiah 31:31) was based on law, not bloodshed. Although the Pharisees were primarily repudiated for making the law onerous, the incident in the temple with the moneychangers refers to a den of thieves, with the Hebrew of Jeremiah 7:11 referring to violence and murder rather than larceny.

      The repudiation of violence against or the murder of animals in the temple is also found in Hosea 6:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Matthew 9:13, and Matthew 12:7.

       
      • Don

        November 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM

        @”She is wrong because she attempted to rebut my post….”
        oh,ok. I see.

        Attention everyone!! Attempting to rebut NDDT’s posts is ILLegal. NDDT has not given you a license to do so.

        @ My post & The point of my post & I quoted.

        Be honest & tell me the OTHER “sources” you rely on that say: Hebrews 9:22 IS FALSE, but Hosea 6:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Matthew 9:13, and Matthew 12:7, IS RIGHT

         
      • deb

        November 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM

        re:NDT
        @OTHER sources–The Talmud? Kabbalah?

         
  69. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

    deb
    November 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM
    NDT
    @Saul of Tarsus…I don’t usually do this, but…yawn…you keep talking while I take a nap. :-)

    Talk about HOOT. deb, you should know you cannot wake the dead, then again,maybe YOU can.

    @”She is wrong because she attempted to rebut my post….”

    Sooooo, deb, you are wrong!! WHY ?? You just are,that’s WHY

     
  70. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 6:42 PM

    NDT says: “I’ve already pointed out to you that the term “God” is ambiguous”

    Then If this is true, you & “God” have a lot in common.

     
  71. greg

    November 4, 2012 at 6:59 PM

    Show Times: 8PM ET / 7PM CT / 6PM MT / 5PM PT
    Show Link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tribulation-now/2012/11/05/walking-in-holiness-being-truly-rapture-ready Come join us in the chat room all are welcome.

     
  72. Don

    November 4, 2012 at 7:09 PM

    Adask
    November 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    If You, Alfred, my friend, have the ability, wisdom, knowledge,etc. to create something, & somewhere down the line your creation “breaks down,” I don’t believe you need anyone else to tell you how to repair it, i.e.,”your” creation. Of course there will be others who will say they know a better way,easier way, it’s good ol human nature in the raw. Big me,myself & I. Hey little you let big me through move over stand aside. Well, I say,frankly friend the day is near, & it’s just around the bend,when all your knowitall will be just hot air in the wind. So eat & drink be of good cheer, tomorrow you will die. On this are 3 who will agree It’s me,myself & I. There are 3 more who agree 2

     
    • Adask

      November 5, 2012 at 3:07 AM

      Your comment is not too clear to me.

      I assume that when you use the analogy of me creating something that you are comparing my ability to create a machine with God’s ability to create a soul. I don’t that comparison is relevant. If I create a machine, it might later fail because I used a metal that lacked sufficient tensile strength to work properly. Since I know nothing of metallurgy, I might be completely incapable of analyzing the flaw in my machine. I might need a good metallurgist to fix the problem. It’s not necessarily true that I should be the best “repairman” for any machine I’ve designed.

      But if God designed a soul (or “spirit”) like you or me to be “eternal,” and gave each soul a capacity to freely choose between good and evil, how could God repair a soul that was 1) eternal; and 2) inclined to choose to do evil? When we talk about people with souls, we’re not just talking about mechanical men–robots, machines. We’re talking about beings that have the capacity of choice–not just reaction. If God truly made each man’s soul to be “eternal,” then it seems doubtful that God can destroy any of our souls. If that were true, the souls that chose “good” might be rewarded with an eternal paradise and the souls that chose “evil” might be punished with an eternal Hell. But if an eternal Hell is possible, then it appears that God made us to “unrepairable” by anyone other than ourselves. Perhaps God can’t fix whatever is wrong with me (or you). Maybe, because you and I have the extraordinary gift of choice, I can only be “fixed” by choosing to turn towards God and do God’s will. Same for you. I am not suggesting that I can “fix” my soul with my works, but I am raising the possibility that only I can “fix” myself by choosing to do God’s will–including my choice to recognize the Christ as the means to my salvation.

      My point is that by giving us an eternal soul and the capacity to choose between right and wrong, God may have created beings completely different from mere machines in that, when such beings “break down” and need repairs, it’s up to each being to “choose” to repair itself by turning to God or condemn itself to junk yard of Hell by continuing to choose to evil. Thus, it’s conceivable that God can’t truly “fix” me (or you), but that we can “fix” ourselves by choosing to learn and do God’s will.

      As for your prediction that “tomorrow I (Alfred) will die,” thanks for the cheery thought. You must be the life of every party you attend. But, if I’m dying tomorrow, do you suppose your death will be far behind? And if, after my demise, all my “knowitall” will be just “hot air in the wind,” what do you suppose will happen to all of the knowledge and wisdom you’ve imparted on this blog after your demise? Will your own “knowitall” be reduced to nothing more than “hot air”–or do you expect your comments to be collected and perhaps posted as a new book of the Bible, right after Revelation?

      More, if I should “eat, drink and be merry” in this life, could it be that by doing so I might be deemed to have chosen to live a secular rather than spiritual life? I.e., while I’m being “merry,” should I sleep with my neighbor’s wife? How ’bout his daughter? Would it be OK if I shoot the attorney who represented my ex-wife so long as I did so in fit of “merriment”?

      As for the “3 who will agree It’s me, myself & I,” it occurs to me that that maybe the three of you could vote on whether to agree or not to agree. You could discover the truth of all things by just allowing your “me,” and your “self” and your “I” to vote.

      As for your remark that “There are 3 more who agree 2,” I don’t know know if you mean three more of your own “persons” or three more men or women, it what. So, I’m going to call a metallurgist to see if he can diagnose your prose.

       
      • Don

        November 5, 2012 at 4:50 AM

        @ including my choice to recognize the Christ as the means to my salvation.

        I hope you have chosen to recognize the Christ,Yehshua,as the means to your salvation.

        As for the next to last “3 who will agree, me, myself & I,” This refers to me, telling the “knowitall” who knows more about your (Alfred) creation than you do what he has to look forward to.

        As for my remark that “There are 3 more who agree 2, no need to call a metallurgist. Those 3 are not made of metal, they are the creators of it. So,it will be a waste of your “frns.” to call a metallurgist.

        Once again, I hope you have chosen to recognize the Christ as the means to your salvation. This is all that matters.

         
      • Adask

        November 5, 2012 at 11:42 AM

        I have.

         
      • Don

        November 5, 2012 at 5:31 AM

        @As for your prediction that “tomorrow I (Alfred) will die,”

        The “knowitall” is not Alfred. Alfred IS NOT the “Big Me, Myself & I.”

        The “you,” I was referring to, in my “prose” as you,Alfred, call it, meant/was,the “knowitall, the one who knew more about your creation than you,Alfred knew. So the remainder of what you,Alfred say, should not be seen as you, Alfred saw it. I was not saying for you,Alfred, to eat, drink, etc, I was telling the Big Me, Myself, & I,”knowitall” to eat, drink, etc.
        I have tried to use everything from Abalone fishing to Zoo Management to try to get a point across for you to hopefully see that “The Christ” is your & my ONLY hope. I care for you. I have tried to prove this. I wanted to keep proving it but apparently, you were not getting the messages I sent via E mail the SAME way I sent them word for word. It’s as tho someone could intercept my message to you & alter it to the extent it meant something different than what I intended. I think this Net/Web is just that, at least at times,Net/Web is for “entrapment purposes.”

         
      • Adask

        November 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM

        I agree with most of whatever you say, whenever I’m able to understand whatever it is you’ve said.

        But sometimes you make comments that seem so “relaxed” that I can’t tell if you’re criticizing me, commenting on the article, writing to another reader, or communicating to the spirits. Usually, if I don’t think that I really understand, I don’t respond. I try to avoid getting into email dialogues with people I don’t understand. Such dialogues can be fun, but they take so much time when both sides are speaking in “tongues,” that I can’t justify the investment.

        IF I understand your previous comment, I think that maybe you’re not trying to give me a hard time. If so, I thank you. If I don’t understand, well, I thank you anyway for taking time to post a comment on this blog.

         
  73. Don

    November 5, 2012 at 4:17 AM

    deb
    November 5, 2012 at 12:01 AM

    @ONE is a lonely number…
    @One is indivisible
    Yes, & apparently infinitely so.I wish I had the ability to put my hand in my side to remove a portion of myself & make a “companion” as in kind after kind. Wow ! And, if I “was” an “eternal” being & the ONLY one? Double Wow!!

     
  74. Don

    November 5, 2012 at 7:54 AM

    I believe laughter is healthy. Everyone on this Adask law site should want me to stay around for that reason alone.You must admit that I am good for something.Here is my latest jewel of wisdom.

    It is my understanding that chem trail spraying began in 1995. I no longer believe that those “chem trails are poisons” for the purpose of decreasing the population of the earth because the population has increased by several million prople since 1995.Therefore, I have to conclude that the chem trails are not poisons.They are aphrodisiac fertility hormones (courtesy of U Tube)

     
    • Don

      November 5, 2012 at 7:56 AM

      people, not prople.

       
    • Don

      November 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM

      P.S.The scripture in the Book of Revelation that says: “Woe to those who poison the Earth,” Notwithstanding. Right,NDDT? There was something at one time called DDT, wasn’t there?

       
  75. Don

    November 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

    @But sometimes you make comments that seem so “relaxed”……..”

    ok, then I won’t comment anymore to anyone unless I’m uptight. Maybe this way,my comments will be upfront & understood.

     
  76. Adask

    November 18, 2012 at 5:58 AM

    Several verses in the Bible indicate that man cannot see God’s face or form. If those verses are true, they would seem to support that argument that the Christ was not God, but was the Son of God and an entirely separate being. Those verses include:

    (Exodus 33:20) – “But He [God] said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !”
    (John 1:18) – “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
    (John 5:37) – “”And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.”
    (John 6:46) – “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.”
    (1 Tim. 6:15-16) – “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.”

     
    • NDT

      November 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM

      @Adask

      Exodus 33:20 Is taken out of context, verse 18 sets the context of kadowd.
      John 1:18 “God” is a translation of theos, which is anbiguous.
      John 5:37 is talking about ‘the Father’, not ‘God’.
      John 6:46 is talking about ‘the Father’, not ‘God’.
      1 Tim 6:15-16 does not mention ‘God’.

      The doctrine of the trinity is inconsistent with the Hebrew texts, any argument which uses it is of little value.

       
    • deb

      November 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

      @ Adask Nov. 18, 5:58 AM–Al, what do you believe?–because ultimately that’s what really matters–“whom do you say that He was/is?”

      Many people believe that Jesus never actually claimed  to be God.  Most people who believe this, themselves, simply DO NOT want to believe that Jesus was/is God; and they use the invalid statement, “Jesus never claimed to be God,” as alleged “support” for their lack of belief (and lack of careful study of the Gospel accounts).

      Matthew 9:2-6, Mark 2:3-12
      Jesus … said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth … That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

      John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      John 1:14
      And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

      John 5:16-18
      Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

      John 8:58
      Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

      John 10:30-31
      I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

      John 10:38-39
      The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him.

      John 14:9
      He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

      John 20:28
      And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

      Acts 20:28
      Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

      Colossians 1:16
      For by him [Jesus] were all things created.

      Colossians 2:9
      For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1 Timothy 3:16
      God was made manifest in the flesh.

      Titus 2:13
      Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

      Philippians 2:6
      Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

      Hebrews 1:8
      But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

      Revelation 1:17
      Fear not; I am the first and the last.

      Revelation 22:13
      I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

      If these verses, in our limited capacity and understanding (and there are more) can not prove Yeshua is Yahweh, what’s the point of continuing with this post? I prefer to be like Thomas looking through the holes in His hands and proclaim…”My LORD and my GOD.” and as the song goes “How Great Thou Art”.

       
      • Adask

        November 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

        I understand that there’s a controversy as to whether the Christ was or was not God incarnate. There are verses in the Bible to support both views. The two sets of verses (those that declare or imply the Christ was God incarnate and those that declared or imply that he was not) can’t both be true. The controversy flowing from the Bible’s own verses tells me that the text of the Bible is not entirely infallible.

        The controversy and even contradiction suggests that it’s up to each of us to decide what we want to believe. Some will choose to believe the Christ was God incarnate. Others will choose to believe that the Christ was and is an entirely separate being from God.

        For me, the only choice that makes sense is that the Christ was not God incarnate. I don’t base that conclusion so much on the various texts I quoted in the article above as I do on the “logic” of “sacrifice”. I believe a “sacrifice” was required to pay for the original sin committed by Adam (and Eve). I believe that sacrifice could not have been paid by an ordinary man. That is, there was no way for mankind to achieve the required “sacrifice” by their own works. I therefore believe that only a very unusual man–even a man directly “begot” by God–could satisfy the requirement for a “sacrifice”.

        I believe that sacrifice had to be made on behalf of mankind, but not by mankind (the debtor), to the “creditor”: God. It makes absolutely no sense to be that God sacrificed Himself by dying on the cross to pay the debt owed to Him (God) by Adam and mankind. Could God have simply canceled the debt? I think so. If that’s true, why would God allow Himself to be killed rather than simply write off the debt?

        More, while there is controversy and contradiction in the Bible as to whether the Christ was or was not God incarnate, there is no controversy or contradiction of which I’m aware about whether or not our Father YHWH ha Elohiym is IMMORTAL. So far as I know, the Bible is absolutely consistent in declaring God to be the one truly immortal being in all of creation. If God is immortal, and the Christ actually died on the cross, then God, by definition, cannot have been the being on the cross. If the being on cross died, he’s not immortal. If the being on the cross died for three days, he could die again for 3 trillion years. If God is not immortal, the Bible ceases to make much sense.

        If the Christ was God incarnate and God can’t die, then there was no real “death” on the cross. If God was merely “playin’ possum” on the cross and pretending to have died for the three following days, the whole story of the Christ degenerates into a charade and a lie. (Who is the father of all lies?) If someone didn’t actually die on the cross, the whole Christain faith is pointless and false. If God can’t die and Christianity is true, then the Christ must be someone other than God. The Christ died. God can not and did not.

        For me, that “logic” seems irrefutable. If someone can refute it, I’ll be happy to listen, but I don’t see how such refutation is possible.

         
      • deb

        November 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

        Well Al, you’re trying to compare your logic with Yahweh’s all Omniscient, Omnipotence and Omnipresence. You really think you can?

        @Some will choose to believe the Christ was God incarnate. Others will choose to believe that the Christ was and is an entirely separate being from God.–Who determines that He can’t be both?–the created thing–man?

        Job 5:9 He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted.
        Job 11:7 Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
        Psalm 92: 5 How great are your works, O LORD, how profound your thoughts!
        Psalm 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.
        Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
        Eccl. 7:24 Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound–who can discover it?
        Col. 2:3 Mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ…in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

        @Could God have simply canceled the debt? I think so. If that’s true, why would God allow Himself to be killed rather than simply write off the debt?–No, the debt could not be cancelled, because it HAD to be paid for in pure and undefiled blood. God’s own blood. Adam’s sin involved Adam’s (created in His image) pure blood.

        @If God is immortal, and the Christ actually died on the cross, then God, by definition, cannot have been the being on the cross. If the being on cross died, he’s not immortal. If the being on the cross died for three days, he could die again for 3 trillion years. If God is not immortal, the Bible ceases to make much sense.–He has power to lay down His life and take it up again. John 10:18 “I have authority to lay it (life) down and authority to take it up again.” The payment needed to be made only once. Hebrews 9:25,26 Every year the chief priest went into the holy place to make a sacrifice with blood that isn’t his own. However, Christ didn’t go into heaven to sacrifice himself again and again. Then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the creation of the world. But now, at the end of the ages, he has appeared once for all to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.

        Yaweh to Moses “I AM that I AM”

        Yeshua to the Jews “before Abraham was “I AM”” there are a number of verses where He claims to be the “I AM”

        Yeshua to Martha “I AM the resurrection and THE life”–the things I don’t fully understand now will be revealed then.

        The Revelation of Jesus=Jehovah=the existing one is salvation Christ=anointed Messiah, which God=Elohim and Jehovah gave to him Jesus=Jehovah=the existing one. Rev. 1:1

        So your reasoning is faulty according to Scripture.

        Is the Bible infallible? It is possible to have man’s influence–but fallible to those whom He calls, no. Not to me. But I do question why many of the books written were not included in it.

        But He also said ” Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to everyone generously without a rebuke, and it will be given to him.” James 1:5

         
      • Adask

        November 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM

        Each of us can “cherry pick” particular verses to support our particular arguments.

        For example, here’s a verse quoting the Christ himself, that tends to support my conclusion that the Christ and God are two different beings:

        Mat_12:32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

        I understand that the term “Son of man” in that verse to mean the Christ. I understand the term “Holy Ghost” to mean God (although it might also mean the “Holy Spirit” that is other than God. Whatever the term “Holy Ghost” means, the Christ appears to be comparing himself to that “Holy Ghost” and admitting that blasphemy against himself (the Christ) shall be forgiven while blasphemy against the “Holy Ghost” cannot be forgiven.

        This dichotomy clearly implies that the Christ, himself, recognizes that he and and Holy Ghost are two different beings, and more, that the Christ recognizes that he is inferior in status to the Holy Ghost. I.e., if blasphemy against the Christ shall be forgiven then the Christ is, relatively speaking, no big deal. However, if blasphemy against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven, then it seems certain that the Holy Ghost must be more sacred than the Christ. If any being is more sacred than the Christ, it’s apparent that the Christ is not the most sacred being in this universe. If so, the Christ is not God.

        Are we to believe that it’s a mortal sin to blasphemy God when He acts in the person of the “Holy Ghost,” but it’s quite alright to blasphemy God when He acts in the person of the Christ? I recognize that possibility exists, but I can’t believe that God, Himself, is saying that sometimes blasphemy against God–in any of his “persons”–is OK.

        As for the fallibility of my “logic,” I’m acutely aware of that disability. Nevertheless, I have to believe that the Bible was written with words that have fixed meanings that can be studied, dissected and even understood by means of “logic”.

        Have you ever read Strong’s definitions and seen how many possible definitions can be associated with any particular word? For example, here’s Strong’s definition of the term “his own” as seen in Luke 2:3:

        G2398
        ἴδιος
        idios
        id’-ee-os
        Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, that is, one’s own; by implication private or separate: – X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

        Thus, “his own” can have several applications and can even mean “their” (plural) “own”. How can anyone decide what the proper meaning of the original Greek word “idios” means within any particular sentence or context without relying on reason and logic? Every Bible written in English is written on someone’s particular capacity for logic and reason to interpret what any particular verse written originally in Hebrew or Greek means in English.

        If you think you can rely on the Bible without relying on logic, you’re kidding yourself. You may not be relying on your logic, but you are relying on the logic of whoever ultimately interpreted any text you’re reading in English.

        It might be that the application of logic was to be avoided when there was a single Bible with a single and historically-reliable set of words. However, today, there are two dozen or more commonly recognized “versions” of the Bible–and every one of them exists based on the presumption that the other 23 are somehow defective and do you clearly express the word of God. Every one of those versions presents a different slant on the Christian faith. The Catholic and Protestant Bibles don’t even agree as to the Ten Commandments! How can anyone deduce which version of the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) is true, without resorting to some application of logic? Are we to simply accept the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments or the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments as a “mystery” that we must accept without thinking and choosing but only as an act of faith? Are you willing to bet your soul and salvation on mere faith that the version of the Bible that you rely on is “infallible”?

        I am not.

        There are at least 24 versions of the Bible available in English, and it stands to reason that at least 23 of them include one or more significant errors.

        I see only two ways of discovering which version of the Bible, or even which interpretation of the meaning of any biblical verse, is correct: divine revelation and logic. I admit that logic is a poor substitute for divine revelation. But, generally speaking, divine revelation is rare while logic is relatively common. More, logic is not necessarily anathema to divine revelation. I.e., even logic is sometimes inspired by or based upon divine revelation.

        2 Timothy 2:15 is interpreted by the King James Bible to read, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” I presume that verse is telling us to “study” the scripture to show ourselves approved unto God. I doubt that that verse means that we must simply read and automatically believe each word or verse in the scriptures as an act of faith. After all, there are at least two dozen versions of the Bible; which should we study and believe? More, I doubt that we can “study” without logic.

        Finally, I’m convinced that we cannot “rightly divide the word of truth” without logic. Timothy at least implies that the “word of truth” (presumably the scriptures) can only be understood by first “dividing” those words into their possible meanings and then choosing the meaning that seems closest to God’s intent. Generally speaking, I doubt that you’ll “divide” those words or “choose” their most righteous meaning except by divine revelation or logic. It may well be that the only answer to the meaning of various verses in the Bible can be found by divine revelation. But it may also be that the Good LORD will not provide that revelation until you have first exhausted your capacity for logic to personally “divide” the words and discover their meanings.

        I doubt that we can avoid the contradictions in today’s Bible by implying that such “mysteries” must be understood only by faith and never by logic. I suspect those contradictions are there to attract our attention and give us something to focus on when we “study to show ourselves approved unto God”.

         
      • deb

        November 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM

        About 33 verses that I quoted in the last two posts hardly seems to be cherry picked. And Scripture is replete with verses speaking of Messiah’s divinity from Genesis to Revelation. He came in the volume of the book it is written of Him.

        One can not use logic to interpret Scripture which is divinely inspired. Logic is based on theories and probabilities. It is the principle of philosophical arguments based on inductive reasoning.
        Scripture tells us in 2 Peter 1:20, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” Sure it must be investigated, applying the law of language, using reason but always relying on the Spirit of truth to illuminate us to gain insight into the meaning of Scripture.

        The red herring approach is a logical fallacy. But then so is an argument from personal incredulity. Just because some portions of Scripture don’t fit into the mold of one’s logic does not make it less truthful.

        And yes faith IS a gift Yahweh gives his chosen ones. Having or showing a mental assent on the basis of logic as to what makes sense and what doesn’t, is not faith. Yahweh can not be found through logic. Scripture tells us that we must be converted and become as little children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. I wonder how much logic a child uses to believe the Father. In fact the word logic is not once found in the pages of Scripture.

        Perhaps this is the reason why America’s Christians are “lost at sea (C)” in the waves of Aristotle’s logic.

        But you are right @”This post is long-winded, pedantic and sometimes redundant.” And it is your blog.

         
      • Adask

        November 20, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        Logic isn’t a way of finding knowledge, so much as communicating knowledge already “found”. It’s like the scientific method. You lay out your premises, you offer your conclusion and you do so in a way that can be communicated to others in way that allows others to dissect your argument to see if they agree with your premises and with your conclusion. Logic is a means by which conclusions can be supported or refuted. It’s like putting all your cards on the table and showing your hand in poker.

        I used my version of “logic” to communicate an idea on this blog about whether the Christ is or is not God. Some agreed with my argument. Some disagreed. But so far, those who’ve disagreed have not disposed of the premises on which my conclusion is based, but instead merely rejected my conclusion or advanced alternative arguments based on different premises which they believe are sufficient to overcome my argument.

        Thus, what we have here is . . . failure . . . to communicate.

        I recognize that there are verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that the Christ was God incarnate. I also recognize that there are other verses in the Bible that indicate that Christ was not God incarnate. I presented some of the verses that indicate that Christ was not God incarnate as premises for my conclusion that the Christ was necessarily a begin other than God. Some have disagreed with the conclusion of my argument, but so far as I’ve seen, no one has refuted my fundamental premises (verses in the Bible).

        I.e., if the Christ was God incarnate, who was he praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane? Who was he praying to while on the cross (“Father, Father, you have you forsaken me?”)

        So far, those who disagree with my conclusion haven’t challenged my premises. Generally, those who disagree simply reject my premises and “evidence” under the guise of it all being too mysterious for our little minds to comprehend. Well, if we can’t figure out whether the Christ was or was not God incarnate, what can we figure out? What is the value of a faith that can’t be understood? What is the value of a Bible that won’t even let us understand who or what God and the Christ are? How are we to be judged after we pass on if the terms of the faith which we claim cannot be understood?

        I.e., if we can’t understand who/what the Christ is, how can we be later blessed or damned based on our ability to choose or not choose to do good or evil? How is it fair or just that I should be held accountable for my choice to do good or evil in this life if the fundamentals of the Bible are incomprehensible? If I can’t even know who/what the Christ was, how can I claim as a Christian to have intentionally “chosen” to follow the Christ?

        If the Christ and God are identical,does that mean all “Christians” are actually Jews? Or does it mean that all Jews are (unbeknownst to them) actually “Christians”? If God can be the Christ, can He also be Mohammed? Can He have also been Buddha and Confucius?

        I don’t claim to know the answers to any of those questions. But I do claim to have some questions and some evidence that seems to validate those questions as at least credible. So far, the only answer I’ve received to my fundamental questions (like WHO was the Christ praying to in Gethsemane and while on the cross) have been ignored. I am treated by some as something like a child by the “adults” who insist that I should just trust them and do as they say and don’t ask any more silly-assed questions. Just believe what some other people believe and it’ll all work out.

        Maybe so.

        But I see understanding who and what the Christ was as fundamental to my (and your) salvation. Is there a more fundamental question than “Was the Christ also God incarnate”? Could it be that each man’s salvation depends on each of our answers to that question? If so, how are our prospects for salvation improved by avoiding that question?

        There is credible evidence in the Bible that even the Christ did not believe he was God. How do we explain that evidence if we are to nevertheless believe that Christ was God incarnate?

        So far as I know, no one has commented on this blog to refute the evidence I’ve presented that that Christ was not God incarnate. Some people are denying my conclusion (the Christ is a being other than God); no one is denying my evidence. That strikes me as illogical.

        For me, so far, the “logic” of Christianity doesn’t work and can’t work unless the Christ is someone completely different from our Father YHWH ha Elohiym. Somebody had to die on the cross. If God is immortal and eternal, God can’t ever die. If God can’t die, either God was not on the cross (which means the Christ was someone other than God) or God was on the cross and didn’t actually die, but simply pretended to die (in which case, the value of Christianity would seem doubtful).

        I always stand to be corrected, but so far as I know the Bible does not say that God overcame death. God was never subject to death and therefore never had to “overcome” death. But the Christ (who was subject to death) did overcome death–with the aid of his Father, God.

        Perhaps the fundamental question is “Can God die?” If God can die, then the Christ may have been God incarnate. If God cannot die, then either the Christ was not God incarnate, or no one actually died on the cross, death was not overcome by the Christ since he never actually died, and most of our hopes for an eternal afterlife are therefore suspect.

        So, perhaps we are reaching the fundamental (or at least “more fundamental) question: Can God die?

        Depending on the answer to that question, we can move much closer to understanding who/what was the Christ.

        From my perspective, the “logic” of the dialogue(s) on this blog entry have helped me (at least) to better understand my own questions, premises and conclusions. If my “logic” disturbs others, it has helped me to get closer to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

        One more point, it may be true that the word “logic” does not appear in the Bible, but it is true that Proverbs 25:2 declares that “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Do you suppose such searches can be conducted without reason and logic? Or is all such searching merely mystical?

        More, if the word logic does not appear in the Bible, the words “reason,” “reasoned” and “reasoning” appear 88 times in the Bible. Do you suppose that anyone can “reason” without logic? Their concepts of “reason” may or may not have been as evolved as Aristotle’s. But anyone who suggests that “logic” is foreign to the Bible is probably making a mistake and worse, trying to label “logic” as some sort of taboo.

        In your comment, you mentioned a child’s belief (without logic) in the Father. Maybe that’s true, but I doubt that children believe in anything they haven’t seen, unless they are first told about it by their earthly friends and parents. More, I doubt that you’ve seen many children who didn’t go through phase where they repeatedly asked “Why, daddy? Why, daddy? Why, daddy?” Insofar as children want to know “why” are a very early age, those children would seem predispose to embrace logic. That’s all logic is–a means to discover and communicate causes. If God made all men, and all men are endowed with an ability to reason and logically discover causes, I doubt that logic is inherently bad.

        In fact, I’m amazed at how many people who’ve criticized my conclusions in this matter have at least hinted that my “logic” must be ungodly. I’m not saying my “logic” is correct or irrefutable, but those who can’t refute my “logic” logically, seem predisposed to dismiss my logic as therefore ungodly. That suggests that those who see my logic as “ungodly” (a taboo) are simply unable to overcome my logic and may be disturbed by that inability.

         
      • NDT

        November 20, 2012 at 3:38 AM

        @deb

        “Well Al, you’re trying to compare your logic with Yahweh’s all Omniscient, Omnipotence and Omnipresence. You really think you can?”

        Well deb, you’re trying to make a point based on fantasy. You really think you can?

        They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:

        And YHWH was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

        And Cain went out from the presence of YHWH, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

         
      • deb

        November 20, 2012 at 12:05 PM

        @Well deb, you’re trying to make a point based on fantasy. You really think you can?

        Well NDT it seems you really think you can based on your familiarity with fantasies. But it’s ok, Yeshua will forgive you, if you repent, since only Yahwweh can forgive sins.

        The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 1Cor.8:2

        The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
        But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! Matthew 6:22,23

         
  77. paltu mage

    November 19, 2012 at 6:17 AM

    cristian call god from Jesus. I love jesus. The baptismal scene includes the Heavens opening, a dove-like descent of the Holy Spirit, and a voice from Heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased. a lot of thanks to writer to write this post.

     
  78. NDT

    November 20, 2012 at 3:43 AM

    “Is Christ God?”

    No. See Genesis 1:26-27

     
    • deb

      November 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM

      Yeshua is Yawhweh. :-)

       
      • Adask

        November 20, 2012 at 1:03 PM

        Maybe so, but if so, why did Yeshua pray to Yawhweh will on the cross? (“Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?”) If Yawhweh is immortal and eternal, he can’t ever die. Therefore, did anyone actually die on the cross–or did Yeshua/Yawhweh merely pretend to die on the cross? If no one actually died on the cross, was there a “sacrifice” capable of paying Adam’s and mankind’s debt to Yawhweh? If God can’t die, and God was on the cross, no one actually died on the cross. If no one actually died on the cross, what is the value of Christianity?

         
  79. Anon4fun

    November 20, 2012 at 3:12 PM

    Adask: “I recognize that there are verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that the Christ was God incarnate. I also recognize that there are other verses in the Bible that indicate that Christ was not God incarnate.”

    There are millions of mutually exclusive pairs of conclusions that can be drawn from any text of sufficient size. When examining such an instance, we are often forced to make a judgement call. Other times, we find evidence elsewhere in the text that falsifies one or the other conclusion. The latter situation holds in this case. For example, because God does not have a God, the act of Jesus referring to God as, “My God,” is inconsistent with Jesus being God and therefore falsifies one of the competing propositions.

    Because God does not pray to anyone, including himself, the act of Jesus praying to God is inconsistent with Jesus being God and therefore falsifies one of the competing propositions. Similarly, the act of Jesus saying to God, “…nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt,” is inconsistent with Jesus and God being the same being, thereby falsifying one of the competing propositions.

    There are more examples of this falsification from scripture to contradict the identity of Jesus and God. For example, Jesus being raised from the dead, which the living God, not the dead Jesus, accomplished. However, there are no falsifying verses going the other way. The correct conclusion requires only a unbiased look, putting aside the doctrines of men.

     
  80. greg

    November 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM

    Some food for thought….http://youtu.be/TMzh0gTTJI8

     
  81. Pingback: Adask's law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s