Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?
Comments
-
I already gave the scripture that says it. I will post it again:
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.
This scripture does NOT say that Jesus' name was called "Immanuel". The two passages to which I referred, clearly say that the name given to the child born to Mary was NOT "Immanuel" but "Jesus". So then, was the angel wrong in telling Mary and Joseph both to name the child Jesus and not Immanuel? Or were Mary and Joseph wrong by obeying the angel when they should have done what Isa 7:14 said?
Jesus is God and is God with us.
I would appreciate your direct and plain answers to the questions you have been asked ... I really don't like people beating around the bush and evading answering ...
I answer the best way I can.
What are you talking about? I am the one who brought up Isaiah first.
It is about Jesus.
Indeed, in what Jesus did accomplish in obedience to God's, his Father's will it was God with His people ... but Jesus was NOT God, he was God's Son.
God the Father came as a Son in the flesh.
There is scriptures that Jesus was God.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
I have said from the beginning that it is about Jesus.
And I STILL don't know your answer to the questions I have raised, now FOUR previous times. If I couldn't escape the thought that you were avoiding my questions before your latest response, I am pretty much imprisoned by said thought now. But I will try one last time. If you don't respond to this, my FIFTH request for a direct response to my questions, I will conclude you're not going to respond directly to my questions.
1) In Isaiah 7.8, the prophet quotes God as telling King Ahaz - who lived 700 + years before the time of Jesus - that Israel, one of the two nations worrying Ahaz at that time, would be "crushed and completely destroyed" within 65 years. Yes or no: Did the prophet quote God correctly? If yes, then was God right in that prediction?
2) In Isaiah 7.15-16, the prophet tells King Ahaz that before the child whose birth is referenced in Isaiah 7.14 "is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong," "the lands of the two kings [he fears] so much will both be deserted." Yes or no: Doesn't the fact that the two nations Ahaz fears will be deserted before the child is old enough to choose right from wrong - and, from Isaiah 7.8, one of those two nations will be destroyed within 65 years - necessarily mean that the child Isaiah refers to in 7.14 is a child born in the prophet's and King Ahaz' time?
-
@Bill_Coley And I STILL don't know your answer to the questions I have raised, now FOUR previous times. If I couldn't escape the thought that you were avoiding my questions before your latest response, I am pretty much imprisoned by said thought now. But I will try one last time. If you don't respond to this, my FIFTH request for a direct response to my questions, I will conclude you're not going to respond directly to my questions.
1) In Isaiah 7.8, the prophet quotes God as telling King Ahaz - who lived 700 + years before the time of Jesus - that Israel, one of the two nations worrying Ahaz at that time, would be "crushed and completely destroyed" within 65 years. Yes or no: Did the prophet quote God correctly? If yes, then was God right in that prediction?
2) In Isaiah 7.15-16, the prophet tells King Ahaz that before the child whose birth is referenced in Isaiah 7.14 "is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong," "the lands of the two kings [he fears] so much will both be deserted." Yes or no: Doesn't the fact that the two nations Ahaz fears will be deserted before the child is old enough to choose right from wrong - and, from Isaiah 7.8, one of those two nations will be destroyed within 65 years - necessarily mean that the child Isaiah refers to in 7.14 is a child born in the prophet's and King Ahaz' time?
I have told you many times that it is about Jesus.
No one should ever doubt that a prophet of God quoted God correctly or not.
Now show who you say the child was.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
I have told you many times that it is about Jesus.
No one should ever doubt that a prophet of God quoted God correctly or not.
Now show who you say the child was.
Your response about not doubting a prophet's quotation of God seems to mean that your answer is "yes," Isaiah quoted God correctly: God told Ahaz one of the two nations Ahaz feared would be destroyed within 65 years. Thanks.
Though I've asked you five times, I still have no clue as to your answer to my questions about Isaiah 7.15-16, which, as I think I made clear in my last post, are about the meaning of the prophet's words AT THE TIME HE WROTE THEM.
I think it's now fair for me to conclude that you don't intend to respond to those questions - not directly at least. Such is your right, of course. I won't ask again.
In my view, the in-context meaning of Isaiah 7.14 - to the prophet - is clear, and it is that the verse refers to a child born in the prophet's time. Christians - including the writer of Matthew - find fulfillment of that text in Jesus. But in its original context, that's clearly NOT what the prophet believed his prophecy was about
-
Your response about not doubting a prophet's quotation of God seems to mean that your answer is "yes," Isaiah quoted God correctly: God told Ahaz one of the two nations Ahaz feared would be destroyed within 65 years. Thanks.
To me it seems more that @YourTruthGod in his perspective of truth would answer "no" as he seems to think that the prophet spoke to Ahaz about a child to be born about 700 years later, or perhaps the prophet was not addressing Ahaz at all, or perhaps "Ahaz" was just a placeholder for some king living hundreds of years later at the time of the birth of Jesus..
Though I've asked you five times, I still have no clue as to your answer to my questions about Isaiah 7.15-16, which, as I think I made clear in my last post, are about the meaning of the prophet's words AT THE TIME HE WROTE THEM.
Your question is too "dangerous" to give an answer, as the answer would crash the beloved idea and doctrine that is being believed.
I think it's now fair for me to conclude that you don't intend to respond to those questions - not directly at least. Such is your right, of course. I won't ask again.
Of course, you will not receive an answer or response ... there are few people man enough to admit error when they have been caught (oops, pardon the passive voice ... when they caught themselves) in their error.
In my view, the in-context meaning of Isaiah 7.14 - to the prophet - is clear, and it is that the verse refers to a child born in the prophet's time. Christians - including the writer of Matthew - find fulfillment of that text in Jesus. But in its original context, that's clearly NOT what the prophet believed his prophecy was about
The prophecy of Isaiah in Isa 7:14 was fulfilled exactly as prophesied and within the time frame it was prophesied. In addition, at the time of Jesus' birth, the writer of the gospel of Matthew was inspired to point out a truth which had a "connection point" to that incident many centuries earlier during the time of Isaiah ... the connection point was the meaning of name given to that child at the time in that prophecy. The name of that baby was "God with us", as an assurance of what God would do in being with His people to deliver them from the threat they were facing.
In the case of Jesus, he as that promised son of Abraham, son of David, who was to be that man who would be the redeemer, savior, messiah, would show - in an even greater way how God was "God with us" or His people ... this time not delivering them from an enemy nation but from the slavery of sin and death.
In neither case was the child God, rather the child was in each case a human being. The name given to the child in Isaiah's time signified as an assurance that their God would deliver them as He was on their side, with them. In Jesus' case, there is solely a reflection back to that incidence in that the meaning of the name given to the child then in that extraordinary situation would again have great significance with the child born to Mary, as in that human person again it would be "God with us".
-
@Bill_Coley Your response about not doubting a prophet's quotation of God seems to mean that your answer is "yes," Isaiah quoted God correctly: God told Ahaz one of the two nations Ahaz feared would be destroyed within 65 years. Thanks.
Though I've asked you five times, I still have no clue as to your answer to my questions about Isaiah 7.15-16, which, as I think I made clear in my last post, are about the meaning of the prophet's words AT THE TIME HE WROTE THEM.
I think it's now fair for me to conclude that you don't intend to respond to those questions - not directly at least. Such is your right, of course. I won't ask again.
In my view, the in-context meaning of Isaiah 7.14 - to the prophet - is clear, and it is that the verse refers to a child born in the prophet's time. Christians - including the writer of Matthew - find fulfillment of that text in Jesus. But in its original context, that's clearly NOT what the prophet believed his prophecy was about
No, you are making up things about what I say and do.
As I have been stating from the beginning, it is about Jesus.
The Bible doesn't say it was the prophets child in his time, so we shouldn't say it either.
-
@Wolfgang To me it seems more that @YourTruthGod in his perspective of truth would answer "no" as he seems to think that the prophet spoke to Ahaz about a child to be born about 700 years later, or perhaps the prophet was not addressing Ahaz at all, or perhaps "Ahaz" was just a placeholder for some king living hundreds of years later at the time of the birth of Jesus..
Your question is too "dangerous" to give an answer, as the answer would crash the beloved idea and doctrine that is being believed.
Of course, you will not receive an answer or response ... there are few people man enough to admit error when they have been caught (oops, pardon the passive voice ... when they caught themselves) in their error.
The prophecy of Isaiah in Isa 7:14 was fulfilled exactly as prophesied and within the time frame it was prophesied. In addition, at the time of Jesus' birth, the writer of the gospel of Matthew was inspired to point out a truth which had a "connection point" to that incident many centuries earlier during the time of Isaiah ... the connection point was the meaning of name given to that child at the time in that prophecy. The name of that baby was "God with us", as an assurance of what God would do in being with His people to deliver them from the threat they were facing.
In the case of Jesus, he as that promised son of Abraham, son of David, who was to be that man who would be the redeemer, savior, messiah, would show - in an even greater way how God was "God with us" or His people ... this time not delivering them from an enemy nation but from the slavery of sin and death.
In neither case was the child God, rather the child was in each case a human being. The name given to the child in Isaiah's time signified as an assurance that their God would deliver them as He was on their side, with them. In Jesus' case, there is solely a reflection back to that incidence in that the meaning of the name given to the child then in that extraordinary situation would again have great significance with the child born to Mary, as in that human person again it would be "God with us".
I don't state things the Bible does not say.
I prove all my beliefs with scripture.
I know that scripture is about Jesus.
There are no scriptures that I know of that confirms Bill's beliefs; he would just have to add to the Bible with assumptions about who the child was if it was in that prophet's lifetime.
In addition, I post scriptures that plainly say Jesus is God, and I post scriptures that plainly say Jesus is the Holy Spirit, but it is being denied by people here.
-
JESUS IS GOD.
The Bible plainly says so.
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Bible plainly says so.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
-
Genesis 3:1
Did God really say, "_____".
Yes, God really says Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
JESUS IS GOD.
The Bible plainly says so.
Oh,really? Let's ("let US") see ..
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Where does this scripture plainly say that Jesus is God?? The verse mentions several things a child would be called ... NOT a child would actually be. (there is absolutely no indication or mention that Jesus had any children or that he was a father ...)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Where do you read "Jesus" in this verse?
You are interpreting things into verses and then think that is what the verses plainly say ... NO, dear friend. The verses do NOT even say - and certainly not plainly say - what you assume and claim they say.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
The prophecy of Isaiah in Isa 7:14 was fulfilled exactly as prophesied and within the time frame it was prophesied. In addition, at the time of Jesus' birth, the writer of the gospel of Matthew was inspired to point out a truth which had a "connection point" to that incident many centuries earlier during the time of Isaiah ... the connection point was the meaning of name given to that child at the time in that prophecy. The name of that baby was "God with us", as an assurance of what God would do in being with His people to deliver them from the threat they were facing.
In the case of Jesus, he as that promised son of Abraham, son of David, who was to be that man who would be the redeemer, savior, messiah, would show - in an even greater way how God was "God with us" or His people ... this time not delivering them from an enemy nation but from the slavery of sin and death.
In neither case was the child God, rather the child was in each case a human being. The name given to the child in Isaiah's time signified as an assurance that their God would deliver them as He was on their side, with them. In Jesus' case, there is solely a reflection back to that incidence in that the meaning of the name given to the child then in that extraordinary situation would again have great significance with the child born to Mary, as in that human person again it would be "God with us".
An excellent summary declaration of biblical faith, Wolfgang. I particularly appreciate the "connection point" imagery you employed to describe Matthew's embrace of the Isaiah text. VERY well done. Thank you.
-
@Wolfgang Oh,really? Let's ("let US") see ..
Yes, really.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
No, you are making up things about what I say and do.
It's never my intention to make anything up about your or others' posts. To my knowledge, I haven't made up anything about yours. Please specify the things you claim I have.
As I have been stating from the beginning, it is about Jesus.
And as I've been saying from the beginning, my questions have been about the prophet's original intentions and referents.
The Bible doesn't say it was the prophets child in his time, so we shouldn't say it either.
I didn't say the child to whom Isaiah refers is "the prophet's child." I said the child to whom Isaiah 7.14 refers is clearly "a child born in the prophet's time," an assertion that makes no claim of Isaianic parentage or other familial/personal relationship.
I based my claim about the child on the content of Isaiah 7.15-16, verses to which I have drawn your attention and asked for your direct response multiple times during our exchange. Unfortunately, because you have yet to address those verses directly, I don't know how you interpret them or what you believe those verses tell us about the time frame in which the prophet expects the child he references in Isaiah 7.14 will be born.
-
@Bill_Coley It's never my intention to make anything up about your or others' posts. To my knowledge, I haven't made up anything about yours. Please specify the things you claim I have.
You will just have to re read and keep study what I have said until you find it.
And as I've been saying from the beginning, my questions have been about the prophet's original intentions and referents.
We are not supposed to make up things that the Bible doesn't say.
We know for sure though that it is about Jesus because it is fulfilled in Matthew.
I didn't say the child to whom Isaiah refers is "the prophet's child." I said the child to whom Isaiah 7.14 refers is clearly "a child born in the prophet's time," an assertion that makes no claim of Isaianic parentage or other familial/personal relationship.
You fail to say who the child is, and it is the point.
-
You will just have to re read and keep study what I have said until you find it.
So YOU get to accuse me of making things up, but it's up to ME to figure out what you might have in mind? That's not going to happen. In my experience, when people make claims they're not willing to back up, it's because they CAN'T back them up, because their claims are false. I'm assuming that's the case here, as to your claim that I have made things up about what you do and say.
We are not supposed to make up things that the Bible doesn't say.
Which is why I don't claim the Bible says Jesus is God... because the Bible doesn't say Jesus is God.
We know for sure though that it is about Jesus because it is fulfilled in Matthew.
The issue I raised and about which I have to-date unsuccessfully sought your direct response concerned the prophet's original intent and referents, not the fulfillment of the prophet's prophecy that Matthew proclaimed in his Gospel.
You fail to say who the child is, and it is the point.
No. The point is that you claimed that I said the child referenced in Isaiah 7 was "the prophet's child in his time." Your claim was false. The irony of your false claim was that you made it in the very same post in which you accused ME of "making up things about what [you] say and do."
-
I am not interested in what you have to keep saying about me.
It is just harassment.
I am going to ignore your false claims about me personally while I speak about scriptures and doctrines.
-
I am going to ignore your false claims about me personally while I speak about scriptures and doctrines.
I wish you would really do that ... especially so, if it were more scriptures than doctrines
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
I am not interested in what you have to keep saying about me.
It is just harassment.
I am going to ignore your false claims about me personally while I speak about scriptures and doctrines.
I haven't said anything about you personally. I've said something about the content of your posts, but nothing about you personally.
For example, I've said you made a false claim about my view of the child to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 7. You claimed that I said the child was "the prophet's child," when in fact I did not make that claim. And I've said I am assuming the reason you won't back up your claim that I make things up about "what [you] say and do" is that you can't back it up... because your claim is false.
Do you acknowledge that you claimed I said the child was "the prophet's child"? Do you acknowledge that in fact I never said the child was the prophet's child? If your response to those two questions is yes, the matter is closed, and to your credit.
And as for my other comment about your posts, all you have to do is back up your claim that I've made things up about "what [you] say and do" - or acknowledge that in fact you have no evidence that I did so - and instantly that matter will be closed, again to your credit.
As for my posts being "harassment," I think it's harassment to make claims critical of the conduct/posts of others that you're unwilling to back up. Do you?
One last thing: Note that when I claimed you said a particular thing about my view of the child Isaiah mentions in Isaiah 7.14, I did more than just make the claim, expecting you to verify it. I provided a link to the post in which you said that particular thing about my view of the child Isaiah mentions in Isaiah 7.14, and I quoted my exact words about that child. When I ask you to back up your claim about me, that's what I have in mind: links to the post(s) in which which you claim I made things up about what you "say and do."
-
Just more personal attacks.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
Just more personal attacks.
Nope. Nothing personal in any of my comments about the content of your posts. You might take them personally! But that's your call and out of my control.
If there's a moral to this story (and I doubt there is) it's simply that I welcome you make the claims of your choice about my posts. But if you do - such as your claim that I make things up about what you "say and do" - know that I will ask you to back them up. And if you're unwilling to back them - such as is the case in your "make things up" claim - know that I will keep asking.
Forty-five years ago, as part of my high school's debate team, I had one maxim burned into my consciousness: If you make a claim, you'd better be able to back it up. If you can't back up a claim, then don't make it. Your high school experience may have transmitted to you a very different maxim about making claims. But my experience is the one that informs my actions.
Welcome to the forums! 😊
-
@Bill_Coley, thank you for the welcome. I think you are a nice guy and I won't take offense anymore.
As for the child in Isaiah, I knew that there was never a child spoken of being born that fits that description until Jesus; but, I wanted to give you a chance to state your case about it and possibly persuade me.
-
@Bill_Coley Once glorified, Jesus is no longer just a "man." Any God who can raise a crucified man to new life, can find a way for a resurrected man to make a home in other humans.
More than one heavenly entity who can make spiritual home in humans (deity) while being separate is clearly not monotheism. If heavenly spiritual direction is different, how does a human know which deity entity to obey ? (reminds me of a house divided)
@Bill_Coley In my view, the fact that the high priest, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or any other persons/groups claimed Jesus believed he was God does NOT mean, let alone prove, that Jesus believed he was God
Question from scripture (before the crucifixion): How did Jesus intelligently know He "descended from heaven" or "came down from heaven" or "from above " (humans are from below) ? (my human memories go back to childhood, yet Jesus knew He came from Heaven)
Jesus answered Matthew 26:63 (NLT) the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God—tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” with scripture images applying to Jesus (Daniel 7:13, Psalm 110:1) that declare Jesus is God so unbelieving Jews heard "witnesses" for "blasphemy" conviction.
@Bill_Coley Note the translators' notes on John 17.11-12, which report that some manuscripts say that what God gave Jesus was the disciples, whom Jesus has protected by the power of God's name.
My own stilted literal English translation of John 17:11 (with propositional outlines in Logos 8):
d Address (e) πάτερ ἅγιε, Father Holy,
e Request τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου protect them in the name of you
f Characterization ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, which you had given me
g Purpose ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς. that they be one as we
Michael W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature, 2011–2013), Jn 17:11.
Parsing αὐτοὺς "them" => pronoun, personal, third person, accusative, plural, masculine
Parsing ὀνόματί "name" => noun, dative, singular, neuter
Parsing ᾧ "which" => pronoun, relative, dative, singular, neuter
Pronoun ᾧ number (singular), case (dative), & gender (neuter) match ὀνόματί (name) so Holy Father had given His Name to Yeshua.
17:11 ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι {B}
The reading that best accounts for the origin of the others has also the strongest attestation: the difficulty of ᾧ (which is read by 𝔓60vid, 66vid א A B C K L W Δ Θ Π Ψ 054 f 1 f 13 28 565 700 Byz Lect) prompted some copyists to replace the dative (which is attracted to the case of the antecedent) with the accusative ὅ (D X 2148 al) or with the plural οὕς (Db 892vid 1009 vg goth eth geo2 al). The latter correction could also have been prompted by the recollection of ver. 6 or the statement in 18:9. The omission of one or more clauses from several ancient witnesses (𝔓66 ita, b, c, e, ff2, r1 syrs copach2) may be due to the difficulty of the original reading, or it may be accidental.
{B} The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 213.
@Bill_Coley ... any more than does your claim earlier in this thread that I don't know Jesus mean, let alone prove, that I don't know Jesus.
Responding to your posted comment with observation about your oft repeated assertion of clear separation between God and Jesus along with 'Jesus is no longer just a "man"' provides basis for my assertion that you "know about Jesus" while not knowing Jesus intimately in One God's commUnity of Love (John 17:20-22). Thankful for 400+ consecutive days experiencing Loving presence of One God's Holy Spirit in me, who peacefully testifies about Lord יהוה God: The Will (Father) & The Word (Son) so am experiencing the Truth of John 17:20-22 (while having an ongoing spiritual battle between my new Holy nature in One God and my old sinful nater = wrteched man that I am). Some days have accused me of being on a drug high from the intensity of One God's Joy flowing out of me. Thankful for the Joy of the Lord (One God) being my strength 😍
@Bill_Coley Given EVERYTHING else Jesus says about God in the Gospels, in my view he CANNOT mean that he thinks himself to be God. For example, consider these verses from John 17 ... Again, there is NO sense in those verses that Jesus understands himself to be God. He says and does nothing on his own. His followers are people given to him by the one he calls "the one true God." They know/believe that Jesus is among them, not of his own volition, but because "the one true God" sent him. That's NOT the picture of one who claims to be God.
Follow-up question to "view he CANNOT mean that he thinks himself to be God." is do you believe Jesus to be a liar ? (only some words are believably true, especially ones about Jesus knowing He came down from Heaven along with using "we" for Father & Jesus plus "I and The Father are One" God that is implied by unbelieving Jews wanting to kill Jesus for blasphemy. Also "I am the Alpha and Omega ... I Jesus ...")
Glory belongs to One God along with being in One God. My reading of John 17 includes One God's commUnity of Love design for believers in Jesus to be in Jesus as Jesus is in The Father and The Father is in Jesus so all believers can be one in God's Love.
@Bill_Coley But John 7.39 makes clear that Jesus was NOT the same before the resurrection as he was after.
Glorification did not change fullness of deity character in Jesus (while fulfilling Daniel 7:13-14 prophecy about The Son of Man)
@Bill_Coley As I explained previously, in my view, the strength of Jesus' faith in and surrender to God is what separates him from those who are "from below." Not everyone has the same strength of faith. Jesus had faith stronger than anyone's in human history, I believe.
To me, the superhuman faith in Jesus is God (fullness of The Word's deity in human flesh that is consistent with John 1:1-18).
John 6:32-33 (NLT) Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now he offers you the truebread from heaven. The true bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
John 6:51 (NLT) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
@Bill_Coley Jesus claims to be the "bread of God;" he does NOT claim to be God.
John 6:51 has three claims by Jesus to be God: "I AM" (same words as One God answering in Exodus 3:14) and living bread referring to Deuteronomy 8:3 plus "came down from heaven" to fulfill prophecy.
@Bill_Coley In part that must be because the Synoptics at no point support your claims; there, Jesus is CLEARLY and without much dispute a human whom God called into ministry.
Matthew 1:23 Immanuel "God with us" that is followed by wise men worshipping Jesus as the one born King of the Jews. One God's bread of life was born in the house of bread (Bethlehem)
Isaiah 40:3 Listen! It’s the voice of someone shouting, “Clear the way through the wilderness for יהוה the Lord! Make a straight highway through the wasteland for our אֱלֹהִים God!
Matthew 3:3 The prophet Isaiah was speaking about John when he said, “He is a voice shouting in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord’s coming! Clear the road for him!’ ” (with parallels in Mark 1:2, Luke 3:4, John 1:23) that all declare prepare the way for the Lord יהוה God (not a human man called by God).
Baptism of Jesus includes God The Father speaking from heaven with prophetic references: e.g. Psalm 2:7 (verse 8 includes Glorification inheritance) and Isaiah 42:1 (with Isaiah 42:8 declaring God does not give His Glory to anyone else).
The devil (not God) tried to tempt lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life, but Jesus responded to each test by quoting Deuteronomy. Also after Jesus commanded the devil to go, the devil obeyed. Did d' evil testing actually tempt the fullness of deity dwelling in Jesus ? (answer of No is consistent with James 1:13)
Evil spirit in a human declares deity of Jesus is in Mark 1:24 “Why are you interfering with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” (with parallel in Luke 4:34)
Mark 2:1-12 records early blasphemy thoughts by scribes. One God knew interior hearts of scribes in Mark 2:7 “What is he saying? This is blasphemy! Only God can forgive sins!” that includes correct assertion that Only God can forgive sins against God (with parallels in Matthew 9:1-8 and Luke 5:17-26)
Previous discussion has included acknowledgment for phrase "Son of Man" being spoken by Jesus in reference to Himself so please explain deity purpose for Sabbath and Lord in Mark 2:27-28 “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!” (parallels: Matthew 12:1-8 & Luke 6:1-5)
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
@Bill_Coley, thank you for the welcome. I think you are a nice guy and I won't take offense anymore.
As for the child in Isaiah, I knew that there was never a child spoken of being born that fits that description until Jesus; but, I wanted to give you a chance to state your case about it and possibly persuade me.
I'm grateful to put behind us the tension that seemed to be building in our exchange. Thanks.
As for the child in Isaiah 7, my point is - and I really hope you will address this argument directly - for the prophet there either was or soon would be a child who fit that description. Look at the content of Isiah 7.14-17, all words Isaiah spoke to King Ahaz:
- Isaiah 7.14: God will give you a sign. A young woman will conceive and give birth to a child whom she will name "Immanuel."
- Isaiah 7.15: The child will eat curds and honey when he knows how to choose good from evil.
- Isaiah 7.16: Before the child knows how to choose good from evil, the two nations you fear will be deserted.
- Isaiah 7.17: Then God will bring Assyria upon you (King Ahaz) your people, and your family line.
So Isaiah tells Ahaz that God will give him a sign, and the sign will be a child during whose youth will come the end of the nations Ahaz fears. The only conclusion about the timing of the child which is consistent with those facts is that the prophet MUST believe the child either has already been born or will very soon be born. How helpful would the sign be to Ahaz if Isaiah were telling him not to worry today about those two nations because by the time a child to be born 700 years in the future knew how to choose good from evil, they will be deserted? "Don't worry, King. Long after you're dead you'll have no reason to worry"?
And there's more reason to believe Isaiah thinks the prophesied child either already has or will soon be born: After the child's birth, Isaiah says, God will bring Assyria upon Ahaz and his people (Isaiah 7.17). So Ahaz will still be alive when the Assyrians invade, an invasion which will happen AFTER the child's birth. That MUST mean Isaiah expects the child to be born in Ahaz' time.
And yet one more reason is found in Isaiah 8.1-4 (ESV): (emphasis added)
Then the LORD said to me, “Make a large signboard and clearly write this name on it: Maher-shalal-hash-baz.” 2 I asked Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah, both known as honest men, to witness my doing this.
3 Then I slept with my wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said, “Call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz. 4 For before this child is old enough to say ‘Papa’ or ‘Mama,’ the king of Assyria will carry away both the abundance of Damascus and the riches of Samaria.”
Isaiah says he and his wife gave birth to a child, and God told Isaiah that before their child can say "mom and dad," Assyria will, effectively, do away with Syria (Damascus) and Israel (Samaria), the two nations Ahaz fears. That's the very result Isaiah told Ahaz would arise before the child promised in Isaiah 7.14 was old enough to choose good from evil! (Isaiah 7.15-16)
To summarize my lengthy and multi-layered argument:
- Isaiah told Ahaz that before the prophesied child knew how to choose good from evil, the two nations he feared would be deserted.
- Those two nations will be deserted by the time the child Isaiah and his wife give birth to can say mom and dad.
- After the desertion of the nations Ahaz fears, Assyria will invade Judah, at a time when Ahaz is still alive.
The ONLY timing of the birth of the Isaiah 7.14 child consistent with that sequence of events is that Isaiah believes it will happen during HIS/Ahaz' lifetimes. Yes, in Jesus Matthew finds a NEW fulfillment of the Isaiah 7.14 prophecy, but my point has nothing to do with Matthew. My point is ONLY about the prophet's expectations as spoke to Ahaz then he wrote his prophecy.
I hope you will now address the content of my argument directly. Show me from Isaiah 7 & 8 where my argument fails. Show me from the text what I've missed, how my logic is faulty.
-
@Bill_Coley, You said this: "For example, I've said you made a false claim about my view of the child to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 7. You claimed that I said the child was "the prophet's child," when in fact I did not make that claim. And I've said I am assuming the reason you won't back up your claim that I make things up about "what [you] say and do" is that you can't back it up... because your claim is false."
Then in a later post you said this: "Isaiah says he and his wife gave birth to a child, and God told Isaiah that before their child can say "mom and dad," Assyria will, effectively, do away with Syria (Damascus) and Israel (Samaria), the two nations Ahaz fears. That's the very result Isaiah told Ahaz would arise before the child promised in Isaiah 7.14 was old enough to choose good from evil! (Isaiah 7.15-16)
You are not honest when you say I made a false claim.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
You are not honest when you say I made a false claim.
Well, here we go again. I genuinely believed we had come to a rapprochement on the issue of accusatory posts; but this latest entry of yours suggests I was wrong.
FOR FUTURE USE: It's really, really, really hard to know that a fellow CD poster has been dishonest in his or her posts. Factual or not? Yes. Whether you agree or disagree with him/her? Certainly. Logical or not? Often. Accurate or inaccurate? Depends on one's own accuracy and objectivity. Reasonable or not? Depends on one's own reasonableness. But honest? No. That's an assessment that requires awareness of others' hearts and intentions.... And in our case, you know neither my heart nor my intentions. You are in no better position to assess my honesty than I am to assess yours.
The rest of your post seems to be an attempt to show that your original claim - that I said the child was the prophet's child - was in fact true. Your attempt fails, however, when we examine the details:
You first made that claim in THIS POST, on July 12 at 7:20 a.m. I responded to your claim the same day, July 12, at 8:47 a.m. in THIS POST.
When you re-visit the content of your and my posts of the morning of July 12, you'll discover that BOTH of us were referring to the child referenced in Isaiah 7.14. Neither of us even mentioned the child Isaiah says he and his wife had. How do I know that? Because the subject of the Isaiah and spouse's child didn't come up until my post - THIS ONE - made the next day, July 13, at 11:08 a.m. So when you and I engaged about "the prophet's child" on July 12, we could not have been referring to Isaiah & spouse's child. We were ONLY talking about the child referenced in Isaiah 7.14, and at that time I had not even offered a hint that Isaiah and spouse's child was the child of Isaiah 7.14.
In fact, I have NEVER argued that Isaiah 7.14 and Isaiah 8 refer to the same child. In my July 13 post I claimed the outcomes the two passages predict are the same, but I very intentionally did NOT say they refer to the same child. Note the distinction between the two children I made via two bullet points in my July 13 post:
Isaiah told Ahaz that before the prophesied child knew how to choose good from evil, the two nations he feared would be deserted.
Those two nations will be deserted by the time the child Isaiah and his wife give birth to can say mom and dad.
I've never believed that Isaiah and spouse's child was the child of Isaiah 7.14. I don't believe that today, which is why I did not make such a claim. I claimed only that the outcome the prophet ties to his and his wife's child offers ANOTHER reason to conclude the prophet believed the Isaiah 7.14 prophecy was going to come true in his time, not 700 years in the future.
Think of this: I say, "It's going to rain before you get home from work." Then an hour later I say, "It's going to rain before I get home from work." Am I saying that you and I are the same person? No. I'm saying it's going to rain before either of us gets home from work.
Isaiah tells Ahaz that before the child prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 knows how to choose good from evil, the two nations Ahaz fears will be deserted. Then in the next chapter, God tells Isaiah that before his and his wife's new child can say "mom and dad" the same basic outcome will result. Does that mean the two children are the same? No. I suppose they COULD be the same. But I didn't say they are the same. I don't happen to believe they are the same. And I certainly was not dishonest when I denied ever saying the child in Isaiah 7.14 was "the prophet's child."
-
And by the way, @YourTruthGod, while your post about my dishonesty prompted my response, it did NOT respond to the core logic and textual evidence I offered in my July 13 post to support my contention that Isaiah must have believed the child prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 would be born in HIS lifetime. I am still waiting, therefore, for you to engage directly - without the distraction of accusations of dishonesty - to my argument and the evidence I adduced in its support. As I asked in that post, "I hope you will now address the content of my argument directly. Show me from Isaiah 7 & 8 where my argument fails. Show me from the text what I've missed, how my logic is faulty." I renew that request.
-
@Bill_Coley I stand by what I said.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
When I have to ask a fellow poster five times to respond to a question - as I had to ask you five times recently - I usually assume that poster doesn't want to answer the question because its honest answer creates unwelcome challenges to his or her argument.
When a poster refuses to engage the substance of my arguments, in favor of personal commentary about me - as you have done in this current exchange - I usually assume that poster doesn't want to engage the substance of my arguments because any authentic engagement would create unwelcome challenges to his or her argument.
And I stand by what I just said.
-
@Bill_Coley, you are playing games and I am not interested for your badgering.
Jesus is God. Stop with the badgering and speak about the topic thread; which, by the way, is not me.
-
Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh as a man.
God is the King as stated in the Old Testament scripture:
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
God is the King as stated in Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
NOW READ THIS:
The Lamb, Jesus, is the King.
Revelation 17:14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”
How many King of kings do you have?
There is only one King of kings.
God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same.
Jesus is the ruler of kings of all the earth.
Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
