A SCRIPTURE based discussion of the Trinity

12467…10

Comments

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then any text deity expression about Jesus must be interpreted as clearly distinct and separate from יהוה Lord God. ('Plain and simple truth' according to @Wolfgang)

    Contrast: if believe Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, then any text deity expression about Jesus is interpreted as truthful consistency.

    It is ALSO "truthful consistency" to interpret each instance of what you call "deity expression about Jesus" as "clearly distinct and separate from יהוה Lord God." Yes, it's not consistent with a conclusion with which you agree, but it IS consistent, and is just as "truthful" according to the point of view it expresses as are your interpretations according to your point of view.


    The 12 year old Jesus knew His human biological father was NOT Joseph, yet went with Joseph & Mary (His human biological mother) to Nazareth.

    When Jesus calls God his "Father," he's not talking about biology; he's talking spirituality.

    • In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray to "our Father" (Matthew 6.9), using the same Greek word he uses at Gethsemane to refer to his Father (Matthew 26.39 - "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.")
    • Jesus tells people they will have no reward from their "Father who is in heaven" if they practice their righteousness to be seen by others (Matthew 6.1). Same Greek word for "Father."
    • The resurrected Jesus directs Mary Magdelene to tell his disciples that he is ascending to his own AND their "Father," again using the same Greek word as he uses to address God directly (John 20.17).
    • (Hebrews 2.11, NLT): Jesus and those he sanctifies all have the same Father. Same Greek word for "Father."

    Jesus clearly believes God is others' "Father" in ways that at least significantly overlap the ways God is his Father. I'm sure you don't argue that since God was the disciples' "Father," their biological fathers weren't the men who conceived with their biological mothers, do you?


    My text understanding is the devil obeying command spoken by Jesus: "Go away, Satan" (Matthew 4:10-11) completed temptation

    None of the three Gospel temptation accounts says this. You're welcome to splice together Matthew's and Luke's accounts, but in my view, you should at the same time acknowledge that you're doing so.


    We agree about the devil's general behavior. Out of character for evil devil is to simply stop tempting on own accord. The devil intensely desires every human to be tormented in hell, clearly separated from God's Love. Every human individually chooses what to Love ❤️ most.

    I don't think it's out of character for the devil to fulfill what in my view is a pre-defined role. The Spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness (Matthew 4.1) to be tempted, so the devil's role in the temptation scene is pre-ordained.


    We disagree about Isaiah 14:3-23 taunt for the king of Babylon being only about the king of Babylon, especially Isaiah 14:12-21 (falling from heaven reminds me of Luke 10:18). Phrase "like father, like son" has me wondering about king of Babylon response to taunting words that includes description about the devil: how many thoughts from/about the devil felt pridefully owned by the king of Babylon ?

    I see no textual support for your speculations about the devil's influence on the king of Babylon. Nor is there any textual support in the Luke verse for your connecting it to the Isaiah 14 account, which to my reading is clearly and solely about the babylonian king.


    Puzzling idea leap conclusion. Gospels include two non-casting out commands by Jesus: "Go away, Satan" ? (Matthew 4:10-11) "Get behind me, Satan" in Matthew 16:23 & Mark 8:33

    In neither of the incidents you cite is the devil or a demon cast out. In each case, the devil/demon is not possessing Jesus; he is external to and independent of Jesus. In Peter's case, Jesus doesn't mean to say Peter IS Satan or that Satan has possessed Peter. He means only that Peter's attitude disrupts and delays his mission, and hence cannot be tolerated. In the temptation scene, the Jesus tells the devil to leave, but we're not told that the devil left in obedience to Jesus' request. Think about the occasion on which the demons Jesus cast out argued with him and asked to be exorcised to specific locations/hosts (Matthew 8.28-32). Such conflict does not occur in the texts you cite.


    Thank you for expressing your faith belief view (interpretation) about a command spoken by the man Jesus lacking God's power/authority => simply disagrees with what "the text says" in Matthew 4:10-11

    I didn't say anything about anyone's "lacking God's power/authority." I said I can't tell you why the devil obeyed Jesus' command to leave because I don't think that's the reason the devil left. If I don't think the devil left because Jesus commanded him to leave, the question of why the devil the devil obeyed Jesus' command is moot. (BTW, the Matthew 4 text DOES NOT say the devil left because Jesus directed him to do so.)


    My disapproval reflects "direct responses" lacked plausible reason for the devil to obey command by Jesus. Who is Jesus spiritually that the devil, all demons, nature (wind & waves), ... obeyed every command spoken by the man Jesus ? (prior to death, burial, resurrection, & exaltation of Jesus)

    I welcome you to disagree with Luke the Gospel writer, who reports that the devil left because he had "completed every temptation," but says nothing about Jesus' directive to leave.

    The "plausible reason" the devil left, according to Luke, was that the devil had "completed every temptation." Again I welcome you to disagree.


    To me, when Luke rearranged temptation order for thematic emphasis, command by Jesus was supplanted by "completed every temptation"

    The lengthy resource quotation you included in your post with this statement focused on the sequence of temptations in the two accounts, and said nothing about the meaning or consequence of the phrase, "completed every temptation."


    Lack of God correction by Jesus disagrees with your faith belief idea 'Since, in my view, Jesus never thought himself to be God'

    Consistent with the form of your response here, the existence of God correction by Jesus to the rich man disagrees with your faith belief idea that Jesus thought himself to be God.

    Not a very productive line of argument, is it?


    What in the John 20:24-29 text connects "My יהוה Lord and My God!" by Thomas with last supper discourse (John 13-16) at least 10 days earlier ?

    Nothing in the text itself makes the connection I propose. Instead, it's the explanation for Thomas' exclamation that makes sense to me. The ten day period is not significant, however, since I'm sure Thomas and his fellow disciples clearly remembered what Jesus had taught them about himself.


    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then one sent by/for God CANNOT be God.

    Yes. You've summarized my point - AND the point the prophet Micah makes - exactly. One who goes FOR God or is sent BY God, cannot be God. That's what the Micah text to which you referred actually says: A ruler will go forth from Bethlehem FOR God (Micah 5.2).


    Contrast: if believe Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, then one sent by/for God CAN be God, who worships One plural unique יהוה God.

    Except that this is not what the Micah 5 text says.


    The Jew Matthew wrote a Gospel for Jews so they could believe Jesus is their Messiah יהוה Lord God, who worships The Father יהוה God.

    I asked you for the textual basis on which you contend that the Micah 5 verse explains why the wise men followed the star. Your response here says nothing about the wise men or why the Micah 5 verse would have led them to follow the star. The Micah 5 verse says a leader will go out FOR God from Bethlehem. Are you saying the wise men followed the star because they believed it would lead them to a leader who had been born to go out for God?


    Please look at Biblical text passages for "I", me, and 3rd person statements by Jesus expressing will of Jesus to do The Father's will: John 5:19-30, John 12:44-50, John 13:1-20

    In each case, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God, whom he calls his "Father." Jesus also makes clear that he has no authority on his own, but only such authority as God has given him (John 5.30). One who believed himself to be God would need authority from someone else to do... ANYTHING?


    The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:23 LEB)

    Yes. "The one who sent him." Sender and sent are not the same. The Son is God's official, in the flesh representative. Refusing to honor the Son is tantamount to refusing to honor the one the Son represents. Such a situation does not require that Jesus BE God.


    @Bill_Coley July 7 * John 12.49: God gives Jesus the authority to speak and what to say

    Jesus is Lord. Yes. Not God, but Lord, the title and position given to him throughout the NT by his disciples and others.


    When God was the only Spiritual Being in existence, Jesus experiened God's Glory (John 17:5) and God's Love (John 17:24).

    We've been down the pre-existence road many times.


    John 10:14-18 text includes Jesus expressing His free will/authority to do The Father's will => No one takes it from me, but I lay it down voluntarily. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take possession of it again. This commandment I received from my Father.” (John 10:18 LEB)

    That Jesus was willing to do God's will doesn't mean he was the "God Shepherd." I assume you and I are, at least on occasion, willing to do God's will. That doesn't make you or me God, does it?


    Now the end of all things draws near. Therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for your prayers. Above all, keep your love for one another constant, because love covers a large number of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaining. Just as each one has received a gift, use it for serving one another, as good stewards of the varied grace of God. If anyone speaks, let it be as the oracles of God; if anyone serves, let it be as by the strength that God provides, so that in all things God will be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:7-11 LEB)

    God glorified through Jesus Christ. Yes. A clear, obvious distinction between God and Christ.


    My interpretation of the text says Jesus knew He had God authority & ability to resurrect Himself.

    Authority from God, yes, but not "God authority" as in authority as God.

    The clear majority of NT references, including two Gospels references below, declare that Jesus was the recipient, not the cause of his resurrection.

    • Matthew 20.19 - "But on the third day he (the Son of Man) will be raised from the dead."
    • Luke 9.22 - "he (the Son of Man) will be killed, but on the third day he will be raised from the dead."


    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then must "see" clear distinctions in the text (reminds me of classical eisegesis deceit).

    @Bill_Coley July 7 No deceit.

    If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you're wrong.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 In my view, if "clear distinctions" exist in texts, as they do in the earlier-cited 1 Peter passages, one "must 'see'" them, regardless of one's faith beliefs (which would remind me of classical exegesis).

    Conceptually we agree about communicating clear text distinctions. We disagree about degree of distinctions in 1 Peter.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Most important command => “Hear, Israel, יהוה Yahweh our God, יהוה Yahweh is unique. And you shall love יהוה Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your might. (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 LEB) where the text does NOT say "And you shall love יהוה Yahweh your God and annointed human sent by יהוה Yahweh with all of your heart" so setting Christ apart as יהוה Lord in your hearts causes loyalty distinction between יהוה Yahweh your God and annointed human lord (when believe Jesus is NOT God).

    @Bill_Coley July 7 No loyalty distinction.

    If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you're wrong.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 The Shema refers to love for God. My confession of faith refers to my love for Jesus as Lord and Savior. I am able to love God as God and love Jesus as my Lord and Savior without confusion. If I can't love and follow Jesus - the one God sent and authorized as my savior - without violating the Shema, then how can I follow Jesus' command to love my neighbor as myself without also violating the Shema? How can I love ANYBODY other than God without violating the Shema?

    Puzzling faith idea quandary that wants to love Jesus as Lord (master/leader/commander) and Savior, BUT believes Jesus is NOT יהוה Lord God. Appears to have a clear distinction between an exalted human master/leader/commander and יהוה Lord God => denies who Jesus (The Word) is.

    Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David according to my gospel, in connection with which I suffer misfortune to the point of imprisonment as a criminal, but the word of God is not bound. Because of this, I endure all things for the sake of the chosen, in order that they also may obtain salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. The saying is trustworthy: For if we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful—he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:8-13 LEB)

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, then setting Christ apart as יהוה Lord in your hearts is obeying "you shall love יהוה Yahweh your God with all of your heart ...". Noticed 1 Peter 3:8-17 has יהוה Lord three times:

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I respect that this is the case for you.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 The 1 Peter 3 text refers to Jesus as Lord - i.e. master/leader/commander - NOT as God.

    Jewish experience of Peter heard Lord spoken for יהוה thousands of times (reading entire Old Covenant during synagogue services every year plus saying/praying The Shema twice daily) prior to encounter with Jewish Rabbi Jesus. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 1 Cor 8.6 makes clear the distinction between the one God - the "Father" - and the one Lord (kyrios) - Jesus Christ. If Paul wanted us to believe that by "Lord" (kyrios) he meant "God," he would not used the terms as he did.

    Jewish experience of Paul also heard Lord spoken for יהוה thousands of times (reading entire Old Covenant during synagogue services every year plus saying/praying The Shema twice daily) along with memorizing every letter & word of Torah (Hebrew Adonai, Lord spoken for יהוה) plus Jewish oral law & traditions prior to personal encounter with יהוה Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus => "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" (Acts 9:5)

    @Bill_Coley July 7 Paul tells the Romans that we have peace with God because of what Jesus, our Lord (kyrios), has done for us (Romans 5.1) He also tells the Romans they will be saved if they declare Jesus to be both Lord (kyrios) and the one God raised from the dead (Romans 10.9).

    Therefore, because we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2 LEB)

    Brothers, the desire of my heart and my prayer to God on behalf of them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For ignoring the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is from the law: “The person who does this will live by it.” But the righteousness from faith speaks like this: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down), or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near to you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim), that if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is יהוה Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same יהוה Lord is יהוה Lord of all, who is rich to all who call upon him. For “everyone who calls upon the name of the יהוה Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:1-13 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 7 Clearly, Paul does not use the word "Lord" (kyrios) to mean God.

    If your text interpretation is right, you're right. If your text interpretation is wrong, you're wrong. Paul describes יהוה Lord Jesus transformation:

    If anyone else thinks to put confidence in the flesh, I can do so more: circumcised on the eighth day, from the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born from Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee, according to zeal persecuting the church, according to the righteousness in the law being blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have considered loss because of Christ. More than that, I even consider all things to be loss because of the surpassing greatness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my יהוה Lord, for the sake of whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and consider them dung, in order that I may gain Christ and may be found in him, not having my righteousness which is from the law, but which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith, so that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already received this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on if indeed I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ. Brothers, I do not consider myself to have laid hold of it. But I do one thing, forgetting the things behind and straining toward the things ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:4-14 LEB)

    Clearly we disagree about Holy יהוה Lord meaning for Jewish Peter & Paul. Remember Saul/Paul transformed from persecuting anyone who believed “Jesus is יהוה Lord” (who ought to be put to death for blasphemy while Saul was zealously serving יהוה Lord God per Jewish law) into Paul proclaiming “Jesus is יהוה Lord” to Jews & Gentiles (so Jews who refused to believe “Jesus is יהוה Lord” wanted to zealously kill Paul for blasphemy).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Logos Bible search "I am" WITHIN {Milestone <Mt14.27>} finds 16 Bibles: 9 English and 7 Greek (εἰμί = "I am") while "it is" WITHIN {Milestone <Mt14.27>} finds 83 English Bibles. 1382 Wycliffe has "I am" while 1535 Coverdale & 1536 Tyndale have "it is I" (puzzling translation of 1st person verb εἰμί as 3rd person, especially when textual criticism of Greek shows no variance for ἐγώ εἰμι in Matthew 14:27). If Greek text had been "ἐστιν ἐγώ" then "it is I" would be corresponding 3rd person translation. Humanly not know why English translation changed from "I am" in 1382 to "it is I" in 1535/1536 (suspect translator personal preferences, which may have embedded cultural bias for English phrase).

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I respect your linguistic skills, but am persuaded by the translation choice made by the large majority of Bible translation teams.

    From my view, every translation is an interpretation of original language words inspired by One Holy God. All English translations have centuries of historical distance from original Scripture text language and cultural context. European and American cultural expressions embedded in English Bible translation expressions can be vastly different than ancient Jewish cultural context when One Holy God inspired Scripture text. My desire for shaping my faith belief ideas from Scripture text includes wanting to understand Holy God's truth in ancient Jewish cultural setting.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Disagreement expressions simply lack Jewish legal basis for execution from what "the text says" in the first five books of the Bible.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 You assume they had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution demands. I disagree.

    No assumption. Results from studying Scripture text & Jewish culture about blasphemy. FWIW: a number of Jewish religious laws & procedures were ignored along the way for Jewish religious execution of Jesus for blasphemy: e.g. Sanhedrin meeting at night (in darkness for a dark verdict).


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then faith belief idea can never explain Jewish Blasphemy death penalty where Jesus was put to death (cruxified) for who He said He is. Ancient Jewish diety identity expressions were clearly understood by Jewish religious lawyers and judges, who had memorized every letter of Torah teaching words (basis for Jewish religious law: literally knew the letter of the law). Jewish religious lawyers and judges refused to believe truthfulness of ancient Jewish deity identity expressions by Jesus, as stated in Luke 22:66-71, and described in John 19:11 as greater sin.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I can explain those blasphemy death penalty calls: They were mistakes.

    Assertion of 'mistakes' simply does not explain what the text says for Jewish religious lawyers & judges replying about verdict to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 At least one of our faith belief ideas from what "the text says" study results is wrong. Every person chooses what to stubbornly believe.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I agree that we're all capable of stubborn loyalty to our faith beliefs, particularly when we believe those beliefs are grounded in Scripture, truth, reason, and logic.

    Ongoing spiritual warfare is the "father of lies" wanting to "help" our human understanding of Scripture, truth, reason, and logic to embed crafty lie(s), with the goal of turning humans away from truly Loving God ❤️ with all our heart, all our minds, all our souls, and all our strength. Many are the ways of deceptive thoughts & voices from the "father of lies" (wants every human to be tormented in hell).


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Clearly our "the text says" study results have different faith belief ideas, which includes how to view/interpret what "the text says".

    @Bill_Coley July 7 For me, my faith beliefs come AFTER - that is, as a result of - my engagement with the biblical text.

    Personally like reading variety of English Bible translations for interpretative ideas about original truth inspiration. Have found being able to research original languages has helped me grasp source for variety of English expressions. All translations lack some original language stuff.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then John 14.1 must NOT be a COMMAND from Jesus to believe in Jesus as God (must mean something else, possibly a figure of speech).

    @Bill_Coley July 7 Or, it means simply that Jesus wants people who believe in God ALSO to believe in him. To my reading of it, that's what the text says.

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then what does believe in Jesus simply mean ? Jewish Rabbi Jesus and Jewish disciples knew God's commandments included => “There shall be for you no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth. You will not bow down to them, and you will not serve them, because I am Yahweh your God, a jealous God, punishing the guilt of the parents on the children on the third and on the fourth generations of those hating me, and showing loyal love to thousands of generations of those loving me and of those keeping my commandments. “You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, because Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name. (Exodus 20:3-7 LEB)

    Also, if believe Jesus never thought himself to be God and spiritually did not pre-exist prior to human body birth, then what could the man Jesus truly know about my Father's house in heaven ?

    “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places; but if not, I would have told you, because I am going away to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” (John 14:1-4 LEB)


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Contrast: if believe Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, then John 14.1 simply COMMANDS => BE YE BELIEVING in Jesus as God (object of belief to me is One plural unique יהוה God, who has more than one voice).

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I welcome you to your understanding of John 14.1.

    Believing Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God also allows me to trust everything Jesus said about My Father and Kingdom of Heaven.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 23 Words spoken by Jewish Teacher Jesus were simple to hear & understand. The disciples already believed in Jesus as יהוה Lord. (John 13:13-14)

    @Bill_Coley June 24 It's also clear that we disagree as to the meaning of the word "Lord" in John 13.13-14. I see no sense in the text that the disciples believe Jesus is "יהוה Lord."

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Clearly reads to me as a variant expression of your faith belief idea 'Since, in my view, Jesus never thought himself to be God' so will 'see no sense in the text that the disciples believe Jesus is "יהוה Lord."', which ignores Jewish understanding: Lord => κύριος => Adonai => יהוה

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I welcome you to your reading of my response as a "variant expression" of one of my "faith belief ideas." For me, however, as I have stated perhaps a dozen times in our exchanges, my faith beliefs come AFTER - that is, as a result of - my engagement with the biblical text, not before.

    "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 4th ed." by Fee & Stuart includes:

    THE FIRST TASK: EXEGESIS

    The first task of the interpreter is called exegesis. This involves the careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover the original, intended meaning. This is primarily a historical task. It is the attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible. This is the task that often calls for the help of the “expert,” a person trained to know well the language and circumstances of a text in its original setting. But one does not have to be an expert to do good exegesis.

    In fact, everyone is an exegete of sorts. The only real question is whether you will be a good one. How many times, for example, have you heard or said, “What Jesus meant by that was …” or, “Back in those days, they used to …”? These are exegetical expressions. Most often they are employed to explain the differences between “them” and “us”—why we do not build parapets around our houses, for example—or to give a reason for our using a text in a new or different way—why handshaking has often taken the place of the “holy kiss.” Even when such ideas are not articulated, they are in fact practiced all the time in a kind of commonsense way.

    The problem with much of this, however, is (1) that such exegesis is often too selective and (2) that often the sources consulted are not written by true “experts,” that is, they are secondary sources that also often use other secondary sources rather than the primary sources. A few words about each of these must be given.

    1. Although everyone employs exegesis at times, and although quite often such exegesis is well done, it nonetheless tends to be employed only when there is an obvious problem between the biblical texts and modern culture. Whereas it must indeed be employed for such texts, we insist that it is the first step in reading EVERY text. At first, this will not be easy to do, but learning to think exegetically will pay rich dividends in understanding and will make even the reading, not to mention the studying, of the Bible a much more exciting experience. But note well: Learning to think exegetically is not the only task; it is simply the first task.

    The real problem with “selective” exegesis is that one will often read one’s own, completely foreign, ideas into a text and thereby make God’s word something other than what God really said. For example, one of the authors of this book once received a letter from a well-known evangelical, who argued that the author should not appear in a conference with another well-known person, whose orthodoxy on a point was thought to be suspect. The biblical reason given for avoiding the conference was the command to: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22 KJV). But had our brother learned to read the Bible exegetically, he would not have used the text in that way. For this is Paul’s final word in a paragraph to the Thessalonians regarding Spirit manifestations in the community. What Paul really says, in current English, is: “Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil” (NIV). The “avoidance of evil” had to do with “prophecies,” which, when tested, were found not to be of the Spirit. To make this text mean something God did not intend is to abuse the text, not use it. To avoid making such mistakes one needs to learn to think exegetically, that is, to begin back then and there, and to do so with every text.

    2. As we will soon note, one does not begin by consulting the “experts.” But when it is necessary to do so, one should try to use the better sources. For example, at the conclusion of the story of the rich young man in Mark 10:24 (Matt 19:23; Luke 18:24), Jesus says, “How hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!” He then adds: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You will sometimes hear it said that there was a gate in Jerusalem known as the “Needle’s Eye,” which camels could go through only by kneeling, and with great difficulty. The point of this “interpretation” is that a camel could in fact go through the “Needle’s Eye.” The trouble with this “exegesis,” however, is that it is simply not true. There never was such a gate in Jerusalem at any time in its history. The earliest known “evidence” for this idea is found in the eleventh century(!) in a commentary by a Greek churchman named Theophylact, who had the same difficulty with the text that many later readers do. After all, it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, and that was precisely Jesus’ point. It is impossible for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom. It takes a miracle for a rich person to get saved, which is quite the point of what follows: “All things are possible with God.”

     Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Fourth Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 27–29.

    From my view, we all always read/interpret what the text says using our faith belief ideas. Thankful to still be learning the Living Word of God: Thankful for previous text encounters with God and looking forward to learning & growing more ❤️🙏 Holy God's Love is incredibly immense ❤️


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 With The Father, Jesus lovingly showed the true way to righteous living in Holy God.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 With due respect, I don't see how this sentence responds directly to any of the questions I posed, so I ask them again:

    @Bill_Coley July 7 If Jesus believed himself to be God, why did he specify that he wasn't doing his own will? Wouldn't his will have been the same as his Father's will if he thought himself to be God? If he thought himself to be God, could his own will have been IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY in contradiction with his Father's will? If not, then why did he say he wasn't doing his own will? (The same distinction is found in the Gethsemane garden scene - "Not my will, but your will.") Why would one who was God choose not to do his own will?

    My reply 'With The Father, Jesus lovingly showed the true way to righteous living in Holy God.' answers your questions, especially willful motivational insight. For Jesus to truly Love ❤️ The Father, Jesus had free will to choose. Understanding multiplicity of evil attack methods by our spiritual enemy provided Loving ❤️ motivation for Jesus to always speak in agreement with The Father. Also demonstrated for every human how to live abundantly in One Holy God (reminds me of Proverbs 3:1-10 plus many more Old Covenant passages, the Scripture when Jesus walked on earth).

    In Mark 2:1-12, What was Jesus thinking ? => And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home. And many had gathered, so that there was no longer room, not even at the door, and he was speaking the word to them. And they came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. And when they were not able to bring him to him because of the crowd, they removed the roof where he was. And after digging through, they lowered the stretcher on which the paralytic was lying. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who is able to forgive sins except God alone?” And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they were reasoning like this within themselves, said to them, “Why are you considering these things in your hearts? Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say ‘Get up and pick up your stretcher and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home.” And he got up and immediately picked up his stretcher and went out in front of them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

    Original audience included Jewish scribes (religious leaders), who were thinking about what Jesus said to the paralytic (only God can forgive sins against God so this man is cursing God => blaspheming). Jesus responded to non-verbal deity accusation thoughts in the scribes. Thankful for paralytic spiritual and physical healing => Glorified God.


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @C Mc JN 17:5 "And now, Father, you glorify me ⌊at your side⌋ with the glory that I had ⌊at your side⌋ before the world existed". How do you read this text, Wolfgang? Are you doing what you accused @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus of doing? CM

    I read the text and leave it as is, and don't read into the text "Jesus experienced glory..." as @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus does due to his faith belief having Jesus already alive and experiencing things long before his life...

    Thus, I am NOT doing what I noticed and mentioned about @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then any text deity expression about Jesus must be interpreted as clearly distinct and separate from יהוה Lord God. ('Plain and simple truth' according to @Wolfgang)

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 Contrast: if believe Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, then any text deity expression about Jesus is interpreted as truthful consistency.

    @Wolfgang July 10 NO ... the question is NOT about what "faith belief" you have when you read the Scriptures. IF you approach Scripture that way, you are making YOUR faith belief (and as such yourself) the authority by which you interpret the Bible.

    @Wolfgang July 10 Simple and plain truth however is: One should have Scripture and its text as the authority by which one may understand the Scriptures, and AFTER that adjust what one believes accordingly.

    Intriguing ideal, but we humans read/interpret text using our pre-existing faith belief ideas (distilled from previous experiences and knowledge).

    Thankful for my original language learning so can appreciate Holy God's inspired truth interpretation into variety of translations. All translations lack some original language stuff.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 When God was the only Spiritual Being in existence, Jesus experiened God's Glory (John 17:5) and God's Love (John 17:24).

    @Wolfgang July 10 Does the text in John 17:5 and John 17:24 say that Jesus experienced God's glory and God's love? It seems to me, that your faith belief has turned what the verses say into what you would like them to say ...

    Experienced summarizes "was having" (εἶχον imperfect verb) in John 17:5 and "loved" (ἠγάπησάς aorist verb) in John 17:24

    My apologies for July 10 "experiened" where my proof readings "saw" experienced (instead of my typing leaving out a letter).


    @C Mc July 11 JN 17:5 "And now, Father, you glorify me ⌊at your side⌋ with the glory that I had ⌊at your side⌋ before the world existed". How do you read this text, Wolfgang? Are you doing what you accused @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus of doing? CM

    @Wolfgang July 11 I read the text and leave it as is, and don't read into the text "Jesus experienced glory..." as @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus does due to his faith belief having Jesus already alive and experiencing things long before his life...

    John 17:5 Greek says Jesus was having the Glory by the side of The Father before the world existed => Jesus experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.

    καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί. (John 17:5 SBLGNT)

    εἶχον verb, imperfect, active, indicative, 1st person, singular (imperfect tense is continuous action in past time => was having)

    @Wolfgang July 11 Thus, I am NOT doing what I noticed and mentioned about @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus.

    Curious about your translation/interpretation of John 17:5 Greek, especially imperfect verb εἶχον




    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 Contrast: if believe Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, then any text deity expression about Jesus is interpreted as truthful consistency.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 It is ALSO "truthful consistency" to interpret each instance of what you call "deity expression about Jesus" as "clearly distinct and separate from יהוה Lord God." Yes, it's not consistent with a conclusion with which you agree, but it IS consistent, and is just as "truthful" according to the point of view it expresses as are your interpretations according to your point of view.

    Concur about interpretative "consistency" => shows our individual interpretive ideas (at least one of us is "truthfully" wrong).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Personally amazed by Luke 2:41-52 where 12 year old Jesus knew the house of My Father is the Jewish Temple (for worshipping יהוה Lord God). All who heard young Jesus were amazed at His insights and answers over many days of discussion in the Jewish Temple.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 In the temple story, Jesus declares God to be his Father; he does NOT declare himself to be God.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 The 12 year old Jesus knew His human biological father was NOT Joseph, yet went with Joseph & Mary (His human biological mother) to Nazareth.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 When Jesus calls God his "Father," he's not talking about biology; he's talking spirituality. ...

    The 12 year old Jesus asked Joseph & Mary (Luke 2:49 you is plural => 2+ in Greek): "... Did you not know that it was necessary for me to be in the house of my Father?” => Jewish Temple is My Father's house for Jesus, NOT Joseph's house in Nazareth where Jesus lived with Joseph and Mary. The 12 year old Jesus knew His human biological father was NOT Joseph, yet went with Joseph & Mary (His human biological mother).

    Bible Search of LEB for "son of" finds 1,646 verses having phrase "son of" OR "sons of" => Jewish family line was traced through fathers. Title "Jesus of Nazareth" shows Joseph was NOT the human biological father of Jesus. Matthew begins => The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1 LEB) that shows Jesus was a human descendant of David and of Abraham, but NOT Joseph.

    For Jesus, the Jewish Temple of יהוה Lord God was both His human biological Father's house and His spiritual Father's house.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 We agree about the devil's general behavior. Out of character for evil devil is to simply stop tempting on own accord. The devil intensely desires every human to be tormented in hell, clearly separated from God's Love. Every human individually chooses what to Love ❤️ most.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 I don't think it's out of character for the devil to fulfill what in my view is a pre-defined role. The Spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness (Matthew 4.1) to be tempted, so the devil's role in the temptation scene is pre-ordained.

    Pre-ordained role does change evil devil character that wants to keep on tempting => always wants every human to fail in loving God first.



    @Bill_Coley July 7 The Gospels typically describe Jesus' commands to demons as his casting them out. There is no such description attached to Matthew's report of the temptation scene. Therefore, given that the Spirit had led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted, that according to Luke's report, the devil left when he had "completed every temptation," and in the absence of casting out imagery in any of the accounts, in my view it's fair to conclude the devil left because he had finished tempting, not because Jesus had ordered him to leave.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 Puzzling idea leap conclusion. Gospels include two non-casting out commands by Jesus: "Go away, Satan" ? (Matthew 4:10-11) "Get behind me, Satan" in Matthew 16:23 & Mark 8:33

    @Bill_Coley July 10 In neither of the incidents you cite is the devil or a demon cast out. In each case, the devil/demon is not possessing Jesus; he is external to and independent of Jesus. In Peter's case, Jesus doesn't mean to say Peter IS Satan or that Satan has possessed Peter. He means only that Peter's attitude disrupts and delays his mission, and hence cannot be tolerated. In the temptation scene, the Jesus tells the devil to leave, but we're not told that the devil left in obedience to Jesus' request. Think about the occasion on which the demons Jesus cast out argued with him and asked to be exorcised to specific locations/hosts (Matthew 8.28-32). Such conflict does not occur in the texts you cite.

    In Matthew 8:28-34, the demons spoke twice before Jesus commanded, followed by instant demonic obedience.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 Thank you for expressing your faith belief view (interpretation) about a command spoken by the man Jesus lacking God's power/authority => simply disagrees with what "the text says" in Matthew 4:10-11

    @Bill_Coley July 10 I didn't say anything about anyone's "lacking God's power/authority." I said I can't tell you why the devil obeyed Jesus' command to leave because I don't think that's the reason the devil left. If I don't think the devil left because Jesus commanded him to leave, the question of why the devil the devil obeyed Jesus' command is moot. (BTW, the Matthew 4 text DOES NOT say the devil left because Jesus directed him to do so.)

    Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan, for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’ ” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and began ministering to him. (Matthew 4:10-11 LEB) => After Jesus commanded, the devil left so devil obeyed command of Jesus while evil devil's hatred of God (and humans created in the Image of God) wanted to continue tempting Jesus.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 My disapproval reflects "direct responses" lacked plausible reason for the devil to obey command by Jesus. Who is Jesus spiritually that the devil, all demons, nature (wind & waves), ... obeyed every command spoken by the man Jesus ? (prior to death, burial, resurrection, & exaltation of Jesus)

    @Bill_Coley July 10 I welcome you to disagree with Luke the Gospel writer, who reports that the devil left because he had "completed every temptation," but says nothing about Jesus' directive to leave.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 The "plausible reason" the devil left, according to Luke, was that the devil had "completed every temptation." Again I welcome you to disagree.

    To me, "plausible reason" is your only "consistent" interpretation with your faith belief ideas.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 Do I mean to imply that "nothing Jesus said could express being יהוה Lord God..."? I suppose so given that if Jesus didn't think himself to be God, and his public statements were always consistent with that view, then yes, nothing Jesus said would have expressed his being יהוה Lord God. But the most precise answer is that I meant to imply that nothing Jesus said DID express his being יהוה Lord God. That is, my implication was not about what he COULD have said, but rather about what he actually DID say.

    What's spiritually inside Jesus so the devil, all demons, nature (wind & waves), ... obey every command spoken by Jesus ?



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 To me, when Luke rearranged temptation order for thematic emphasis, command by Jesus was supplanted by "completed every temptation"

    @Bill_Coley July 10 The lengthy resource quotation you included in your post with this statement focused on the sequence of temptations in the two accounts, and said nothing about the meaning or consequence of the phrase, "completed every temptation."

    Highest rated commentary on Luke => https://www.bestcommentaries.com/luke/

    4:13 The reference to completing the temptation adds evidence to the suggestion that Luke saw these three temptations as the end of a string of temptations (Plummer 1896: 114). The construction πάντα πειρασμόν (panta peirasmon, every temptation) denotes a comprehensiveness to the trials and thus the comprehensiveness of Jesus’ refusal to fall into the trap (a similar use of πᾶς is found in Matt. 3:10 and 12:31; Plummer 1896: 114).

    The reference to the devil’s departure (ἀπέστη, apestē) for a time (ἄχρι καιροῦ, achri kairou) is provocative. Conzelmann (1960: 28) suggests that Luke portrays the period from 4:13 to 22:3 as “Satan free” (this interpretation predates Conzelmann, being held by Plummer 1896: 114 and Klostermann 1929: 61). Stated this way the view cannot work, since Jesus’ ministry is loaded with demonic challenges (4:33–37; 8:12; 9:38–42; 10:17–18; 11:14–22; 13:11–17; S. Brown 1969: 5–19; Marshall 1970: 87–88). What one can say is that satanic pressure intensifies in Luke 22, as numerous references in that chapter show (22:3, 28, 31, 53). The battle between the adversary and Jesus is a constant one in the Gospel, as 22:28 makes clear. Nevertheless, the conflict rages more heatedly in the final moments of the drama. Fitzmyer (1981: 518) notes that 4:13 is the only place in the entire Gospel where direct temptation is successfully withstood—and Jesus is the one who succeeds.

    A final peculiar omission of material occurs here. At the end of this account, Luke omits the reference to angelic ministry, even though he readily refers to angelic activity (Luke 1:11, 26; 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7; 27:23). It could be argued that Luke omits the reference because the angels are primarily a vehicle for revelation or guidance. But the Acts passages show the angels active in deliverance. So the omission in light of the reference to angels in both Mark and Matthew is peculiar and might again suggest an independent source.34

    On the other hand, the Lucan omission of Jesus’ instruction to Satan to depart, which appears in Matt. 4:10, can be explained more easily, since that command belonged to the final temptation of Matthew, which Luke has earlier. Thus, it dropped out in Luke’s rearrangement of the temptation’s order.

     Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 382–383.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 If your faith belief idea 'Since, in my view, Jesus never thought himself to be God' is valid, then Jesus should have immediately corrected Thomas after "My Lord and My God!" in John 20:28, but instead of correction, 'Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”' (John 20:29 LEB). Jesus receiving יהוה Lord God worship from Thomas simply contrasts with Angel correcting John's worship in Revelation 22:8-11.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 Are you saying Jesus should have "immediately corrected" Thomas the way he immediately corrected the rich man who called him "good teacher" by saying only God was good? (Mark 10.17-18)

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 Lack of God correction by Jesus disagrees with your faith belief idea 'Since, in my view, Jesus never thought himself to be God'

    @Bill_Coley July 10 Consistent with the form of your response here, the existence of God correction by Jesus to the rich man disagrees with your faith belief idea that Jesus thought himself to be God.

    To me, Thomas believed Jesus is "My יהוה Lord and My God!". In contrast, Jesus knowing Himself to be part of One plural unique God, knew the rich man's deceptive use of "Good" so asked: Why do you call me Good ? (Jesus knew the rich man really loved ❤️ wealth more than God, which became apparent to everyone when the rich man refused to sell all his possessions and follow Jesus for Godly discipleship).

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then question by Jesus to the rich man: "Why do you call me Good ?" is interpreted as Jesus NOT being God. (seems like circular reasoning to me so the text says what you believe)

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, please explain what Jesus said to Thomas in John 20:29 in response to "My יהוה Lord and My God!" belief in Jesus.



    @Bill_Coley July 7 * On what textual basis do you contend that the Micah 5 verse explains why the wise men followed the star?

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 The Jew Matthew wrote a Gospel for Jews so they could believe Jesus is their Messiah יהוה Lord God, who worships The Father יהוה God.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 I asked you for the textual basis on which you contend that the Micah 5 verse explains why the wise men followed the star. Your response here says nothing about the wise men or why the Micah 5 verse would have led them to follow the star. The Micah 5 verse says a leader will go out FOR God from Bethlehem. Are you saying the wise men followed the star because they believed it would lead them to a leader who had been born to go out for God?

    Humanly not know motivation for the wise men to follow the star (Micah 5 may have been known by the wise men, but was not shared with King Herod). The Jew Matthew understood Micah 5 prophetic fulfillment about the birth of Jesus (Bread of Life) in Beit-Lechem (House-of Bread).

    Where Would Messiah Be Born?

    Micah 5:1–2 The ruler is described as having origins or an existence stretching back to the “days of eternity.” In Proverbs 8:22–23, this phrase is used to describe eternity that precedes the creation of the world. So the messianic one coming out of Beit-Lechem (Bethlehem) has existed for eternity. He is human in his birth but supernatural in his origin. A number of ancient rabbis found the Messiah in this passage also. The famous medieval rabbi David Kimchi wrote in his commentary on the prophets: “Although you are little among the thousands of Y’hudah, out of you shall come forth to me a judge to be a ruler in Isra’el; and this is the king Messiah.”


    The Targum Yerušalmi (Jerusalem Targum) adds: “Out of you Bethlehem shall Messiah go forth before me to exercise dominion over Isra’el; whose name has been spoken from of old, from the days of eternity.” With this Targum Jonathan agrees: “King Messiah is born … from whence is he? He replied, ‘From the royal palace of Bethlehem.’ ” The Talmud also applies this Micah passage to the Messiah (Yoma 10a; Sanhedrin 98b).


     Barry Rubin, ed., The Complete Jewish Study Bible: Notes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Bibles; Messianic Jewish Publishers & Resources, 2016), 844.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 Please look at Biblical text passages for "I", me, and 3rd person statements by Jesus expressing will of Jesus to do The Father's will: John 5:19-30, John 12:44-50, John 13:1-20

    @Bill_Coley July 10 In each case, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God, whom he calls his "Father." Jesus also makes clear that he has no authority on his own, but only such authority as God has given him (John 5.30). One who believed himself to be God would need authority from someone else to do... ANYTHING?

    Thankful for Jesus doing perfect fulfillment of "Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven." along with Holy reputation for יהוה God's name.



    @Bill_Coley July 7 * John 12.49: God gives Jesus the authority to speak and what to say

    @Bill_Coley July 10 Jesus is Lord. Yes. Not God, but Lord, the title and position given to him throughout the NT by his disciples and others.

    If Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God, would The Father and Jesus be righteously angry at one teaching Jesus is NOT יהוה Lord God ?

    LXX Swete search for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> => Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 John 10:14-18 text includes Jesus expressing His free will/authority to do The Father's will => No one takes it from me, but I lay it down voluntarily. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take possession of it again. This commandment I received from my Father.” (John 10:18 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 10 That Jesus was willing to do God's will doesn't mean he was the "God Shepherd." I assume you and I are, at least on occasion, willing to do God's will. That doesn't make you or me God, does it?

    No, am a human who can Thankfully say: "Jesus is יהוה Lord God" & Thankful for The Father יהוה Lord God & Thankful for יהוה Breath The Holy.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 10 My interpretation of the text says Jesus knew He had God authority & ability to resurrect Himself.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 Authority from God, yes, but not "God authority" as in authority as God.

    Our interpretations disagree.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 The clear majority of NT references, including two Gospels references below, declare that Jesus was the recipient, not the cause of his resurrection.

    @Bill_Coley July 10 *  Matthew 20.19 - "But on the third day he (the Son of Man)  from the dead."

    SBLGNT apparatus => 19 ἐγερθήσεται WH Treg NA28 ] ἀναστήσεται RP

    ἐγερθήσεται verb "to raise up", future, passive, indicative, 3rd person, singular (passive voice receives verb action)

    ἀναστήσεται verb "to rise up", future, middle, indicative, 3rd person, singular (middle voice participates in doing verb action with reflexive result)

    @Bill_Coley July 10 * Luke 9.22  - "he (the Son of Man) will be killed, but on the third day he  from the dead."

    SBLGNT apparatus => 22 ἐγερθῆναι WH Treg NA28 ] ἀναστῆναι RP

    ἐγερθῆναι verb "to be raised", aorist, passive, infinitive (passive voice receives verb action)

    ἀναστῆναι verb "to rise up", aorist, active, infinitive (active voice does verb action)

    Now they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going on ahead of them. And they were astounded, but those who were following him were afraid. And taking aside the twelve again, he began to tell them the things that were about to happen to him: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him and flog him and kill him, and after three days he will rise.” (Mark 10:32-34 LEB) that does not have Greek textual variants about "he will rise up" verb.

    ἀναστήσεται verb "to rise up", future, middle, indicative, 3rd person, singular (middle voice participates in doing verb action with reflexive result)


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    Experienced summarizes "was having" (εἶχον imperfect verb) in John 17:5 and "loved" (ἠγάπησάς aorist verb) in John 17:24

    Only in your pre-conceived faith belief system. "To have" does NOT equal "to experience" ... not in Greek, not in German, not in English.

    I did "HAVE" a house from many years ago, but I did NOT EXPERIENCE this house until only recently.

    John 17:5 Greek says Jesus was having the Glory by the side of The Father before the world existed => Jesus experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.

    What your faith belief makes of the words in the text ... not what the text actually says.

    καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί. (John 17:5 SBLGNT)

    εἶχον verb, imperfect, active, indicative, 1st person, singular (imperfect tense is continuous action in past time => was having)

    The exact grammatical structure and tense, voice, mood forms of the verb "to have" do NOT change the meaning of "have" into "experience". It is context (immediate and remote) and overall scope which determines the meaning of words.

    Curious about your translation/interpretation of John 17:5 Greek, especially imperfect verb εἶχον

    I would translate the same as you do "was having" ... but that does NOT equal "was experiencing".

    See above situation about "my house and I" => I "was having" the house in my parents' will for me many years ago and possibly even before I was born, but I "was NOT experiencing" what I had been having for a long time until the time when their will was executed.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 12 Experienced summarizes "was having" (εἶχον imperfect verb) in John 17:5 and "loved" (ἠγάπησάς aorist verb) in John 17:24

    @Wolfgang July 13 Only in your pre-conceived faith belief system. "To have" does NOT equal "to experience" ... not in Greek, not in German, not in English.

    Basic Search in all my Logos resources for experience WITHIN {Headword ἔχω} found eight Greek lexicons showing range of ἔχω "to have" meanings includes "to experience" along with many more.

    Greek reference lexicon BDAG has 11 numbered definitions for ἔχω that includes ⑦ to experience something

    ① to possess or contain, have, own (Hom.+)

    ⓐ to possess someth. that is under one’s control

    α. own, possess (s. esp. TestJob 9f) κτήματα πολλά own much property Mt 19:22; Mk 10:22. 

    β. have = hold in one’s charge or keeping ἔ. τὰς κλεῖς hold the keys Rv 1:18; cp. 3:7. 

    ⓑ to contain someth. have, possess, of the whole in relation to its parts

    α. of living beings, of parts of the body in men and animals μέλη Ro 12:4a; cp. 1 Cor 12:12. 

    β. of inanimate things: 

    ⓒ to have at hand, have at one’s disposal have ἄρτους Mt 14:17; cp. 15:34; J 21:5, where the sense is prob. ‘Did you catch any fish for breakfast?’. 

    ⓓ to have within oneself have σύλλημα ἔχει ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου she has something conceived through the Holy Spirit GJs 18:1. 

    ⓔ to have with oneself or in one’s company have μεθʼ ἑαυτοῦ (X., Cyr. 1, 4, 17) τινά someone Mt 15:30; 26:11; Mk 2:19; 14:7; J 12:8; 


    ② to stand in a close relationship to someone, have, have as

    ⓐ of relatives πατέρα ἔ. J 8:41. 

    ⓑ more gener. φίλον have a friend Lk 11:5. 


    ③ to take a hold on someth., have, hold (to), grip

    ⓐ of holding someth. in one’s hand ἔ. τι ἐν τῇ χειρί have someth. in one’s hand (since Il. 18, 505) Rv 1:16; 6:5; 10:2; 17:4. 

    ⓑ of keeping someth. safe, a mina (a laborer’s wages for about three months) in a handkerchief keep safe Lk 19:20.

    ⓒ of holding fast to matters of transcendent importance, fig. 

    ⓓ of states of being hold, hold in its grip, seize (Hom. et al.; PGiss 65a, 4 παρακαλῶ σε κύριέ μου, εἰδότα τὴν ἔχουσάν με συμφορὰν ἀπολῦσαί μοι; Job 21:6; Is 13:8; Jos., Ant. 3, 95 δέος εἶχε τοὺς Ἑβρ.; 5, 63; Just., D. 19, 3) εἶχεν αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις trembling and amazement had seized them Mk 16:


    ④ to carry/bear as accessory or part of a whole, have on, wear, of clothing, weapons, etc. 


    ⑤ be in a position to do someth., can, be able, ἔ. w. inf. foll. (Hom. et al.; cp. Eur., Hec. 761; Hdt. 1, 49; Pla., Phd. p. 76d; Demosth., Ep. 2, 22; Theocr. 10, 37 τὸν τρόπον οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν=I cannot specify the manner; Lucian, Dial. Mort. 21, 2, Hermot. 55; Epict. 1, 9, 32; 2, 2, 24 al.; Ael. Aristid. 51, 50 K.=27 p. 546 D.: οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν; PPetr II, 12, 1, 16; PAmh 131, 15; Pr 3:27; ApcEsdr 2:24; 3:7; 6:5; TestAbr A 8, p. 86, 13 [Stone p. 20]; Jos., Ant. 1, 338; 2, 58; Just., A I, 19, 5, D. 4, 6 οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν) ἔ. ἀποδοῦναι be able to pay Mt 18:25a; Lk 7:42; 14:14. 


    ⑥ to have an opinion about someth., consider, look upon, view w. acc. as obj. and predicate acc. (POxy 292, 6 [c. 25 a.d.] ἔχειν αὐτὸν συνεσταμένον=look upon him as recommended; 787 [16 a.d.]; PGiss 71, 4; Job 30:9; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 16, 19; Ath. 32, 3 τοὺς μὲν υἱοὺς … νοοῦμεν, τοὺς δὲ ἀδελφούς ἔχομεν) ἔχε με παρῃτημένον consider me excused (= don’t expect me to come) Lk 14:18b, 19 (cp. Martial 2, 79 excusatum habeas me). 


    ⑦ to experience someth., have (freq. in auxiliary capacity CTurner, JTS 28, 1927, 357–60)

    ⓐ of all conditions of body and soul (Hom. et al.; LXX)

    α. of illness, et al. (ApcMos 6 νόσον καὶ πόνον ἔχω; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 305) ἀσθενείας have sicknesses/diseases Ac 28:9. 

    β. gener. of conditions, characteristics, capabilities, emotions, inner possession: 

    γ. of advantages, benefits, or comforts that one enjoys: 

    δ. of a sense of obligation in regard to someth.

    ε. of a sense of inevitability in respect to some action.

    ⓑ of temporal circumstances w. indications of time and age: 


    ⑧ as connective marker, to have or include in itself, bring about, cause w. acc. (Hom. et al.; Wsd 8:16) of ὑπομονή: 


    ⑨ special combinations

    ⓐ w. prep. ἐν: τὸν θεὸν ἔ. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει acknowledge God Ro 1:28 (cp. ἐν ὀργῇ ἔ. τινά=‘be angry at someone’, Thu. 2, 18, 5; 2, 21, 3; ἐν ὀρρωδίᾳ ἔ. τ. 2, 89, 1; ἐν ἡδονῇ ἔ. τ.=‘be glad to see someone’ 3, 9, 1; ἐν εὐνοίᾳ ἔ. Demosth. 18, 167). 

    ⓑ τοῦτο ἔχεις ὅτι you have this (in your favor), that Rv 2:6. 


    ⑩ to be in some state or condition, act. intr. (spatially: Ath. 25, 1 οἱ ἄγγελοι … περὶ τόν ἀέρα ἔχοντες καὶ τὴν γῆν) w. adv. (Hom. et al.; ins, pap, LXX).

    ⓐ impers. it is, the situation is (Himerius, Or. 48 [=Or. 14], 10 πῶς ὑμῖν ἔχειν ταῦτα δοκεῖ; =how does this situation seem to you? Just., D. 3, 5 τὸ … ὡσαύτως ἀεὶ ἔχων) ἄλλως 1 Ti 5:25. 

    ⓑ pers. be (in a certain way) πῶς ἔχουσιν how they are Ac 15:36 (cp. Gen 43:27; Jos., Ant. 4, 112). 


    ⑪ to be closely associated, in a variety of renderings, hold fast, be next to, be next, mid. 

    ⓐ of proper situation or placement, esp. of inner belonging hold fast, cling to. 

    ⓑ of proximity

    α. spatial, to be next to someth: ἐχόμενος neighboring (Isocr. 4, 96 νῆσος; Hdt. 1, 134 al. οἱ ἐχόμενοι=‘the neighbors’; Diod S 5, 15, 1; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 71 §294; Arrian, Peripl. 7, 2; PParis 51, 5 and oft. in pap; 1 Esdr 4:42; Jos., Ant. 6, 6 πρὸς τὰς ἐχομένας πόλεις; 11, 340) κωμοπόλεις Mk 1:3

    β. temporal, to be next, immediately following (Thu. 6, 3, 2 τ. ἐχομένου ἔτους al.; SIG 800, 15; PRev 34, 20; PAmh 49, 4; PTebt 124, 43; LXX) τῇ ἐχομένῃ (sc. ἡμέρᾳ, as Polyb. 3, 112, 1; 5, 13, 9; 2 Macc 12:39; Jos., Ant. 6, 235; 7, 18 al.; cp. εἰς τὴν ἐχομένην [i.e. ἡμέραν] PMich 173, 16 [III b.c.]) on the next day Lk 13:33 (v.l. ἐρχομένῃ); Ac 20:15; 


     William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 420–422.

    BDAG does not have John 17:5 listed as a reference example for any meaning so pondering ⑦.ⓐ.β. , ③.ⓒ , ③.ⓓ , & ②.ⓑ for John 17:5 εἶχον


    In John 17:5, Louw-Nida assigned semantic domain 57.1 to εἶχον

    57.1 ἔχωa; κατέχωc; κατάσχεσιςa, εως f: to have or possess objects or property (in the technical sense of having control over the use of such objects) * — ‘to have, to own, to possess, to belong to.’ **


    * Ownership usually entails to a greater or lesser degree the social sanctions of the right by the owner to use the object in question and the obligation by non- owners to recognize that right and to desist from such usage.


    ** This meaning of ‘have/possess’ contrasts with ‘hold, grasp’ (Domain 18), the whole/part relation (Domain 63), to be in a relationship to (Domain 89), to be in a state or condition (Domain 13), and to have authority, power, or control over persons or objects, either sociologically or physically (Domain 37).


     Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 557.

    In the New Testament, Louw-Nida assigned various uses of ἔχω into 20 semantic domains:

    ἔχω

    (impf εἶχον, fut ἕξω, aor ἒσχον, subj σχῶ, pf ἒσχηκα)

    a possess: 57.1

    b hold on to: 18.6

    c hold a view: 31.1

    d wear: 49.13

    e be able to: 74.12

    f experience: 90.65

    g be: 13.2

    h cause: 90.51

    i content marker: 90.27

    ἒχω: units

    καλῶς ἒχω

    be healthy 23.129

    κακῶς ἒχω

    be sick 23.148

    ἐσχάτως ἒχω

    be very sick 23.151

    ἐν γαστρὶ ἒχω

    be pregnant 23.50

    κοίτην ἒχω

    be pregnant 23.50

    κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἒχω

    have one’s head covered 49.16

    ἒχω ἐν ἐπιγνώσει

    acknowledge 31.28

    ἒχω κοινός

    share mutually 57.99

    ἒχω πνεῦμα πύθωνα

    be a fortuneteller 33.285

    ἒχω οὖς

    be able to hear 24.59

    ἒχω μέρος ἐν

    experience together 90.83


     Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 111–112.

    Louw-Nida Semantic Domain 90.65

    90.65 ἔχωf; συνέχομαιa: to experience a state or condition, generally involving duration—‘to experience, to have.’

     Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 806.

    The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament shows Louw-Nida 57.1 has ἔχω assigned 822 times in New Testament and early Church Fathers. Louw-Nida 90.65 has ἔχω assigned 67 times, which includes John 17:13 => And now I am coming to you, and I am saying these things in the world so that they may have my joy completed in themselves.

    ἔχωσιν verb, present, active, subjunctive, 3rd person, singular (subjunctive verbal action is being probable or intentional)

    John 17:13 reads to me as Jesus is going back to heaven so human believers in Jesus as יהוה Lord God can have Joy of Jesus completed in them.

    Bible Sense Lexicon has <Sense to have (feature)> assigned to ἔχω in John 17:5 and John 17:13



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 12 John 17:5 Greek says Jesus was having the Glory by the side of The Father before the world existed => Jesus experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.

    @Wolfgang July 13 What your faith belief makes of the words in the text ... not what the text actually says.

    How would you describe what Jesus was having in John 17:5 ?



    @Wolfgang July 13 See above situation about "my house and I" => I "was having" the house in my parents' will for me many years ago and possibly even before I was born, but I "was NOT experiencing" what I had been having for a long time until the time when their will was executed.

    House and will situation is not analogous to John 17:5 where physical realm had not been created by God. Only One Spiritual Being existed. Preposition παρὰ (beside, to the side, alongside, by the side of, by) is challenging to describe without physical objects.


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    Basic Search in all my Logos resources for experience WITHIN {Headword ἔχω} found eight Greek lexicons showing range of ἔχω "to have" meanings includes "to experience" along with many more.

    Greek reference lexicon BDAG has 11 numbered definitions for ἔχω that includes ⑦ to experience something

    So, there are 11 lexical definitions given ... why do you pick the one to use that is not applicable to the context? why not one of the others? You are actually using a definition by which you then interpret the verse to match your faith belief. Backwards, once again.

    How would you describe what Jesus was having in John 17:5 ?

    Since Jesus was praying that God would give (future at the time) him glory, he obviously could not have actually experienced it prior, but had it in some other way ... how? in God's foreknowledge plan for the Messiah ... which was being realized at the time in the man Jesus.

    House and will situation is not analogous to John 17:5 where physical realm had not been created by God. Only One Spiritual Being existed. Preposition παρὰ (beside, to the side, alongside, by the side of, by) is challenging to describe without physical objects.

    Notice the idiomatic expression of speaking about thoughts / words being said "to be with" someone ... we today in English, German, etc. would not speak of "an idea was with me", although at times people do say "it (an idea) dawned on me", "it came to me". We would say "I had an idea".

    Simple and plain truths ...

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    Puzzling faith idea quandary that wants to love Jesus as Lord (master/leader/commander) and Savior, BUT believes Jesus is NOT יהוה Lord God. Appears to have a clear distinction between an exalted human master/leader/commander and יהוה Lord God => denies who Jesus (The Word) is.

    I do indeed make a clear distinction between the human-now-exalted master/leader/commander named Jesus and יהוה Lord God.

    We disagree as to the identity of The Word.

    The 2 Timothy 2 text you cited does not say Jesus is God.


    Jewish experience of Peter heard Lord spoken for יהוה thousands of times (reading entire Old Covenant during synagogue services every year plus saying/praying The Shema twice daily) prior to encounter with Jewish Rabbi Jesus. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times.

    Whatever Peter heard during synagogue either compelled him to (or didn't persuade him not to) call Jesus "a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. God raised ⌊him⌋ up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." (Acts 2.22b-24, LEB)

    Peter's belief that Jesus was not God could not be more clearly on display. How could Peter have believed that "a man attested to...by God...with [what was done] by God through him" was ALSO God? The language of his statement precludes such a possibility. Just as does the language of Peter's statement a few verses later in the chapter, where Peter says "God" "raised up" Jesus, and "exalted" him "to the right hand of God" (Acts 2.32-33, LEB), so that we can "know beyond a doubt that God has made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2.36, LEB).

    I openly acknowledge my struggle with the pre-existence material. I know it must somehow be consistent with Scripture's larger message about Jesus' identity, but I find it a challenge to discover that integration. I think it must be a challenge for you to integrate Peter's clear message in Acts 2-4 into your Christology. Is it?


    Jewish experience of Paul also heard Lord spoken for יהוה thousands of times (reading entire Old Covenant during synagogue services every year plus saying/praying The Shema twice daily) along with memorizing every letter & word of Torah (Hebrew Adonai, Lord spoken for יהוה) plus Jewish oral law & traditions prior to personal encounter with יהוה Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus => "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" (Acts 9:5)

    Whatever Paul heard in synagogue either led him to (or didn't persuade him not to) make a clear distinction between God and Jesus.


    Therefore, because we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2 LEB)

    Peace with God through Christ, yes. Christ is the mechanism or conduit through which we are made right with God. In my view, that's a clear distinction.


    (Romans 10:1-13 LEB)

    The Romans passage does NOT, as you quote it, ask people to confess with their mouths that "Jesus is יהוה Lord." You've added to the text in order to support your view.


    Clearly we disagree about Holy יהוה Lord meaning for Jewish Peter & Paul. Remember Saul/Paul transformed from persecuting anyone who believed “Jesus is יהוה Lord” (who ought to be put to death for blasphemy while Saul was zealously serving יהוה Lord God per Jewish law) into Paul proclaiming “Jesus is יהוה Lord” to Jews & Gentiles (so Jews who refused to believe “Jesus is יהוה Lord” wanted to zealously kill Paul for blasphemy).

    Our disagreement includes your decision to add "יהוה" before "Lord" in the quoted text, an insertion that supports your view, but is not supported by the text itself. I could strengthen the biblical support for my positions, too, were I to add words to the text. But I don't believe I have the right to do so.


    From my view, every translation is an interpretation of original language words inspired by One Holy God. All English translations have centuries of historical distance from original Scripture text language and cultural context. European and American cultural expressions embedded in English Bible translation expressions can be vastly different than ancient Jewish cultural context when One Holy God inspired Scripture text. My desire for shaping my faith belief ideas from Scripture text includes wanting to understand Holy God's truth in ancient Jewish cultural setting.

    Every translation, including yours, is an interpretation of original language words inspired by One Holy God. I respect your language skills, but trust the majority view on the "It is I" issue.


    No assumption. Results from studying Scripture text & Jewish culture about blasphemy. FWIW: a number of Jewish religious laws & procedures were ignored along the way for Jewish religious execution of Jesus for blasphemy: e.g. Sanhedrin meeting at night (in darkness for a dark verdict).

    Please clarify: Do you believe the Jewish leaders had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution of Jesus demands?


    Assertion of 'mistakes' simply does not explain what the text says for Jewish religious lawyers & judges replying about verdict to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    The specific claim to which my comments referred is in John 10.33, where they pick up stones to kill Jesus because they believe he claims to be God. Jesus then corrects their assertion, telling them that he sees himself as the Son of God, not as God.

    The accusation in John 19.7 - that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God - is clearly correct. Whether their law justified their desire to execute Jesus because he had claimed to be the Son of God is another matter because for Jesus, "Son of God" is a divinely ordained role for him, but one that does not mean he is God. As the Son of God, he has been "set apart" and "sent...into the world" (John 10.36), and the Father is "in" him and he is "in" the Father (see John 17.20-26, where Jesus prays that his followers will be "in" him and the Father, and that he (Jesus) will be "in" his followers; or John 14.20, where Jesus says that post-resurrection, his followers will know that they are "in" him and he is "in" them; or John 15.4-5, where Jesus says fruit production depends on his disciples remaining "in" him and his remaining "in" them. So, Jesus' being "in" the Father is a designation of intimacy, not deity).


    Ongoing spiritual warfare is the "father of lies" wanting to "help" our human understanding of Scripture, truth, reason, and logic to embed crafty lie(s), with the goal of turning humans away from truly Loving God ❤️ with all our heart, all our minds, all our souls, and all our strength. Many are the ways of deceptive thoughts & voices from the "father of lies" (wants every human to be tormented in hell).

    If you're saying we're all capable of being wrong in our understanding of Scripture, I agree. But if you're saying my Christological views reflect some of Satan's "crafty lie(s)," then I disagree.


    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then what does believe in Jesus simply mean ?

    It means that I believe Jesus IS the Christ, God's anointed one, the God sent to live, die, and live again as my savior and Lord.


    Also, if believe Jesus never thought himself to be God and spiritually did not pre-exist prior to human body birth, then what could the man Jesus truly know about my Father's house in heaven ?

    God can reveal all kinds of things to people, especially to people with Jesus' level of spiritual discernment.


    Believing Jesus is truly in One plural unique יהוה God also allows me to trust everything Jesus said about My Father and Kingdom of Heaven.

    Good. I also trust what Jesus said about the Father and the Kingdom.


    From my view, we all always read/interpret what the text says using our faith belief ideas. Thankful to still be learning the Living Word of God: Thankful for previous text encounters with God and looking forward to learning & growing more ❤️🙏 Holy God's Love is incredibly immense ❤️

    Of course we read Scripture using our faith belief ideas. The issue is, where did those faith belief ideas come from? Did they come from us or from Scripture? When it comes to my Christology, mine come from my engagement with the biblical text.


    My reply 'With The Father, Jesus lovingly showed the true way to righteous living in Holy God.' answers your questions, especially willful motivational insight. For Jesus to truly Love ❤️ The Father, Jesus had free will to choose. Understanding multiplicity of evil attack methods by our spiritual enemy provided Loving ❤️ motivation for Jesus to always speak in agreement with The Father. Also demonstrated for every human how to live abundantly in One Holy God (reminds me of Proverbs 3:1-10 plus many more Old Covenant passages, the Scripture when Jesus walked on earth).

    But at Gethsemane, Jesus makes clear that HIS will is NOT the same as God's will. HIS will is that the cup be taken from him. It's only because he surrenders his will to God's will that he accepts his fate (Mark 14.36).

    So yet again I ask: If Jesus was God, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from his Father's will? At Gethsemane, he didn't want to accept the cup of suffering, but knew the Father wanted him to accept the cup of suffering, so he surrendered his will and embraced God's will. We celebrate his surrender to God, but doesn't that surrender - the fact that he said "I want your will to be done, not mine" (Mark 14.36, NLT) - prove that he didn't think himself to be God, and in fact wasn't God? Why did one who was God need to surrender his personal will to the one who was God?


    Original audience included Jewish scribes (religious leaders), who were thinking about what Jesus said to the paralytic (only God can forgive sins against God so this man is cursing God => blaspheming). Jesus responded to non-verbal deity accusation thoughts in the scribes. Thankful for paralytic spiritual and physical healing => Glorified God.

    In his response to the scribes, Jesus makes clear that he can announce the forgiveness of sins because God has given him the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2.10). Jesus gives authority to his disciples in Matthew 10.1-8, but that doesn't mean his disciples will be Jesus.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    Puzzling faith idea quandary that wants to love Jesus as Lord (master/leader/commander) and Savior, BUT believes Jesus is NOT יהוה Lord God. Appears to have a clear distinction between an exalted human master/leader/commander and יהוה Lord God => denies who Jesus (The Word) is.

    @Bill_Coley replied:

    I do indeed make a clear distinction between the human-now-exalted master/leader/commander named Jesus and יהוה Lord God.

    The problem is that adding יהוה  to the word "Lord" is non-scriptural adding to the text. The word "Lord" has in all instances where it is used the same plain meaning of "Lord, Superior, Master". It is the context that determines (a) to whom "Lord" is applied, and (b) in which regard that person is superior.

    Turning the Messiah Jesus into "יהוה Lord God" is as false an interpretation as turning Abraham into "יהוה Lord God" when his wife called him "Lord" (cp. 1Pe 3:6)

    We disagree as to the identity of The Word.

    The Greek word λόγος carries the same meaning of "word, message, etc." in all passages in the NT where it is used.

    "When other translators employ "Word" for λογος in the Prologue, they are doing so because of their interpretation that Johannes intends for λογος to represent a pre-incarnate Jesus. ... The expression "God's message" (the λογος of God) is used throughout the New Testament to represent the spoken message about the Messiah and his teachings. That usage is in full agreement with the use in the LXX, where the expression normally indicates "what God said." Rather than propose a new significance for λογος here, the present translator indicates that the usage in Johannes is the traditional Jewish usage of the word. Thus, sayings such as "Your message is truth" (17:17) are affirmations of the coming of the Messiah." (Frank Daniels. (o. J.). NE NT Commentary (Joh 1,1–5), (c) 1999).

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 12 Experienced summarizes "was having" (εἶχον imperfect verb) in John 17:5 and "loved" (ἠγάπησάς aorist verb) in John 17:24

    @Wolfgang July 13 Only in your pre-conceived faith belief system. "To have" does NOT equal "to experience" ... not in Greek, not in German, not in English.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 13 Basic Search in all my Logos resources for experience WITHIN {Headword ἔχω} found eight Greek lexicons showing range of ἔχω "to have" meanings includes "to experience" along with many more.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 13 Greek reference lexicon BDAG has 11 numbered definitions for ἔχω that includes ⑦ to experience something

    @Wolfgang July 13 So, there are 11 lexical definitions given ... why do you pick the one to use that is not applicable to the context? why not one of the others? You are actually using a definition by which you then interpret the verse to match your faith belief. Backwards, once again.

    Of the 11 BDAG definitions for ἔχω, "⑦ to experience something" has the most examples while "① to possess or contain, have, own (Hom.+)" has the second most examples. To me, God's Glory description includes: characteristics, emotions, inner possession (plus more: e.g. Holy). Thus BDAG definition " ⑦ to experience something . ⓐ of all conditions of body and soul (Hom. et al.; LXX) . β. gener. of conditions, characteristics, capabilities, emotions, inner possession: " fits John 17:5 context of Jesus was having the Glory by the side of The Father before the world existed => Jesus spiritually experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 13 How would you describe what Jesus was having in John 17:5 ?

    @Wolfgang July 13 Since Jesus was praying that God would give (future at the time) him glory, he obviously could not have actually experienced it prior, but had it in some other way ... how? in God's foreknowledge plan for the Messiah ... which was being realized at the time in the man Jesus.

    If believe Jesus did not exist prior to God creating world, then obviously Jesus could not have experienced God's Glory before the world existed.

    John 17:5 Greek text does not describe any foreknowledge plan, with future realization (none of the verbs are future tense).

    Jesus was praying for God to Glorify Jesus with the Glory Jesus was having beside The Father before the world existed.

    καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί. (John 17:5 SBLGNT)

    δόξασόν verb, aorist, imperative, 2nd person, singular (command to glorify using aorist tense to simply describe action: past/present time).

    εἶχον verb, imperfect, active, indicative, 1st person, singular (imperfect tense is continuous action in past time => was having)

    εἶναι verb, present, active, infinitive (to be, to exist)


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 13 House and will situation is not analogous to John 17:5 where physical realm had not been created by God. Only One Spiritual Being existed. Preposition παρὰ (beside, to the side, alongside, by the side of, by) is challenging to describe without physical objects.

    @Wolfgang July 13 Notice the idiomatic expression of speaking about thoughts / words being said "to be with" someone ... we today in English, German, etc. would not speak of "an idea was with me", although at times people do say "it (an idea) dawned on me", "it came to me". We would say "I had an idea".

    Like expression idea of one idea παρὰ (beside, to the side, alongside, by the side of, by) another idea.


    @Wolfgang July 13 Simple and plain truths ...

    We simply read/interpret scripture text using our pre-existing faith belief ideas (distilled from previous experiences and knowledge).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Puzzling faith idea quandary that wants to love Jesus as Lord (master/leader/commander) and Savior, BUT believes Jesus is NOT יהוה Lord God. Appears to have a clear distinction between an exalted human master/leader/commander and יהוה Lord God => denies who Jesus (The Word) is.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 I do indeed make a clear distinction between the human-now-exalted master/leader/commander named Jesus and יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 We disagree as to the identity of The Word.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 The 2 Timothy 2 text you cited does not say Jesus is God.

    To me, 2 Timothy 2 includes Jesus is יהוה Lord in two words by Paul: Lord and Christ (Messiah). The Jewish Messiah (Christ) is יהוה Lord God.

    From John 1:1 Greek grammar lesson implications, truthfully do not expect any text to say "Jesus is God" because spiritual quality of Jesus (The Word) is eternally being God while One plural unique God includes two more voices: The Father (WIll) and Breath The Holy. At times, God's three voices are independent while at other times are unified (at the same time: e.g. Revelation 16:17, Revelation 19:5, and Revelation 21:3).


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Jewish experience of Peter heard Lord spoken for יהוה thousands of times (reading entire Old Covenant during synagogue services every year plus saying/praying The Shema twice daily) prior to encounter with Jewish Rabbi Jesus. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Whatever Peter heard during synagogue either compelled him to (or didn't persuade him not to) call Jesus "a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. God raised ⌊him⌋ up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." (Acts 2.22b-24, LEB)

    Text description of male human physical body says nothing about spiritual nature inside that human body.

    Acts 2:22 ἄνδρα noun, accusative, singular, masculine (ἀνήρ "man" describes male human physical body)

    Acts 2:24 τοῦτον pronoun, demonstrative, accusative, singular, masculine ("this" grammatically agrees with ἄνδρα => "man")

    Woman was physically from ἀνήρ "man" (bone from my bones, flesh from my flesh). Abraham encountered three ἀνήρ "men" in Genesis 18, who were Angels sent from God to investigate Sodom & Gomorrah. Range of ἀνήρ word meaning also includes husband. Context determines what kind of spirit is inside ἀνήρ "man".

    Daniel 7:13 υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου "son of mankind" that uses a different "mankind" word ἄνθρωπος (who was Holy to be at God's Throne in heaven). FWIW: anthropology is the study of anthropos (ἄνθρωπος).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Peter's belief that Jesus was not God could not be more clearly on display. How could Peter have believed that "a man attested to...by God...with [what was done] by God through him" was ALSO God? The language of his statement precludes such a possibility. Just as does the language of Peter's statement a few verses later in the chapter, where Peter says "God" "raised up" Jesus, and "exalted" him "to the right hand of God" (Acts 2.32-33, LEB), so that we can "know beyond a doubt that God has made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2.36, LEB).

    We disagree about what the text says about Peter's belief, who had seen/experienced transformation of Jesus into Holy Light with The Father speaking before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Peter later clearly understood Breath The Holy voice of God when Ananias and Sapphia lied (Acts 5:1-11). Peter obeyed all three voices of One unique God (and at times, Peter stumbled: e.g. denying Jesus three times prior to crucifixion that is followed by threefold restoration in John 21:15-19).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 I openly acknowledge my struggle with the pre-existence material. I know it must somehow be consistent with Scripture's larger message about Jesus' identity, but I find it a challenge to discover that integration. I think it must be a challenge for you to integrate Peter's clear message in Acts 2-4 into your Christology. Is it?

    No challenge for my faith belief idea about Jesus truly being in One plural unique יהוה God. Dwelling inside the ἀνήρ "man" body, Jesus was/is The eternal Word spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God. When the ἀνήρ "man" Jesus was walking on earth, The Will (Father) spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God was ruling in heaven. After resurrection of Jesus, two voices in One יהוה Lord God rule on God's throne in heaven: Jesus is at the right hand of The Father in Holy Heaven. All authority has been granted to Jesus (right hand of power) while Jesus eternally does The Father's Will.

    Caveat: challenge for me is a numeric percentage about voice portion spiritual sizes in One יהוה Lord God. Three voices are plural & unique in One יהוה Lord God (while have no idea about relative spiritual percentage sizes as three voices are both unique/unified). One God does not describe origin of God: being was/is/will be (in one Hebrew word יהוה - God's Holy Name). My speculative idea is a precursor to John 17:5 & John 17:24 where God possibly destroyed all physical stuff so God could reconfigure into One unique God with three voices for Love ❤️commUnity , plus design physical realm having The Word holding things together. Not know if The Word existed prior to God's reconfiguration (if ever The Word did not exist is speculation).

    Greek grammar helped me appreciate The Word quality was being God while The God was being more than The Word (includes voices of The Father & Breath The Holy). My One plural unique God description literally reflects original language word inspiration in Deuteronomy 6:4 that has plural God (of us) with יהוה twice and unique (echad is translated as One in many English Bibles). In Hebrew, a plural noun is a minimum of three.

    Echad — The One and Only

    The other key word in the first line of the Shema is echad (ech-HAHD). Its most common meaning is simply “one,” but it can also encompass related ideas, like being single, alone, unique, or unified. The multiple shades of meaning of echad and the difficult wording of the rest of the line have made the Shema a topic of debate for millennia.

    Part of the problem is that Deuteronomy 6:4 doesn’t even have verbs. It literally reads: “YHWH … our God … YHWH … one.” * The verse can be read either as saying “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone,” or “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Of these two readings, the more common reading is the second, that “the LORD is one” in the sense that God is unique. There is only one God, the God of Israel. So this line is usually understood as a statement of belief in monotheism.

    The word echad has been a sticking point between Jews and Christians. Often Jews point to the fact that it means “one” as a reason that they cannot believe in the Trinity or in the deity of Christ. And Christians respond that echad can refer to a compound unity, as when God created morning and evening, and together they made yom echad (“one day”) (cf. Genesis 1:5). Or when Adam and Eve, through marriage, became basar echad (“one flesh”) (Genesis 2:24).

    This whole debate hinges on interpreting the Shema as a creed; that is, “the LORD is one” is a statement about what kind of being God is. But, interestingly, one of the most widely-read Jewish Bible translations now renders Deuteronomy 6:4 as “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone” rather than “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” It does so because in recent decades, scholars have come to believe that the original, ancient sense of echad in this verse was more likely to be “alone” than “one.” In Zechariah 14:9, for instance, echad has this sense: “The LORD will be king over all the earth; on that day the LORD will be echad and his name echad” (pers. trans.). This is a vision of the messianic age, when all of humanity will cease to worship idols and revere only God and call on his name alone.

    Jewish scholar Jeffrey Tigay asserts that even though the Scriptures clearly preach monotheism, the Shema itself is not a statement of belief. It’s an oath of loyalty. He calls the first line of the Shema “a description of the proper relationship between YHVH and Israel: He alone is Israel’s God. This is not a declaration of monotheism, meaning that there is only one God…. Though other peoples worship various beings and things they consider divine, Israel is to recognize YHVH alone.”

    Why is this important? Because it changes the sense of what the Shema communicates. Rather than merely being a command to a particular belief about God, it is actually a call for a person’s absolute allegiance to God. God alone is the one we should worship; him only shall we serve. As often as the Shema is called a creed or a prayer, it is better understood as an oath of allegiance, a twice-daily recommitment to the covenant with the God of Israel.

    As Western Christians we are used to reciting creeds and statements of belief in order to define our faith. We expect to find one here too. So we easily could misunderstand that Jesus was saying that it is extremely critical that we believe in God’s “oneness.” But when properly understood, this line shows that the greatest commandment is actually a call to commit ourselves to the one true God.

    Reading the line this way solves another mystery about what Jesus was saying. If he was asked what the greatest commandment was, why does he begin by quoting a line about God being “one”? Because if you read this line as about committing oneself to God as one’s Lord, it flows directly into the next line in the Shema, explaining why we should love God with every fiber of our being. If the Lord alone is our God, and we worship no other gods, we can love him with all of our heart and soul and strength. The two sentences together become one commandment, the greatest in fact—to love the Lord your God.

    Once again, in the light of their Hebrew context, we find that Jesus’ words call us beyond what is going on in our brains. We are not just to “hear” but to take heed, to respond, to obey. And we are not just called to believe in the oneness of God, but to place him at the center of our lives.

    To do that, we are to love God with all of our heart and soul and strength and mind. Each of these words, in their Hebrew context, can expand our understanding of our calling and the very essence of the Scriptures, as Jesus understood it. We’ll consider that next.


    * The word “YHWH” transliterates the four Hebrew consonants of God’s name that Moses received in Exodus 3:14. Out of reverence, Jews never say this name aloud, but commonly substitute Adonai (“my Lord”) or HaShem (“the Name”) instead. Most Bible translations respect this tradition by rendering this name as “the Lord.”


    Lois Tverberg and Ray Vander Laan, Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewish Words of Jesus Can Change Your Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).pids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).

    Thankful for learning Jewish culture: ancient and modern, which is helping me appreciate Holy God's Truth as originally inspired.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Jewish experience of Paul also heard Lord spoken for יהוה thousands of times (reading entire Old Covenant during synagogue services every year plus saying/praying The Shema twice daily) along with memorizing every letter & word of Torah (Hebrew Adonai, Lord spoken for יהוה) plus Jewish oral law & traditions prior to personal encounter with יהוה Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus => "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" (Acts 9:5)

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Whatever Paul heard in synagogue either led him to (or didn't persuade him not to) make a clear distinction between God and Jesus.

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then Paul's writing clearly distinguishes between God and the man Jesus.

    In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, then Paul's writing clearly distinguishes two voices of One יהוה Lord God.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Therefore, because we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Peace with God through Christ, yes. Christ is the mechanism or conduit through which we are made right with God. In my view, that's a clear distinction.

    In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, then Romans 5:1-2 is truthfully consistent with John 10:1-21 & John 14:1-6


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 (Romans 10:1-13 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 13 The Romans passage does NOT, as you quote it, ask people to confess with their mouths that "Jesus is יהוה Lord." You've added to the text in order to support your view.

    My view literally shows my original language study results. (Acts 9:5) "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" => “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting! ..."



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Clearly we disagree about Holy יהוה Lord meaning for Jewish Peter & Paul. Remember Saul/Paul transformed from persecuting anyone who believed “Jesus is יהוה Lord” (who ought to be put to death for blasphemy while Saul was zealously serving יהוה Lord God per Jewish law) into Paul proclaiming “Jesus is יהוה Lord” to Jews & Gentiles (so Jews who refused to believe “Jesus is יהוה Lord” wanted to zealously kill Paul for blasphemy).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Our disagreement includes your decision to add "יהוה" before "Lord" in the quoted text, an insertion that supports your view, but is not supported by the text itself. I could strengthen the biblical support for my positions, too, were I to add words to the text. But I don't believe I have the right to do so.

    Learning about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name and ancient Jewish usage provided impetus for me inserting "יהוה" before "Lord" to show ancient Jewish author intent & original audience understanding. Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). If my understanding about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name is factually incorrect, please provide two OR three credible witnesses.

    Searching Protestant 2015 New Living Translation for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> INTERSECTS Lord finds 6,282 results in 5,530 verses. NLT search for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds 6,828 results in 5,791 verses. NLT search for <Lemma = lbs/he/אָדוֹן> finds 773 results in 710. NLT spelling style for LORD and Lord reflects Hebrew word being translated. The 2015 NLT Introduction does not mention God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name.

    FYI: so far my learning about original languages & Jewish culture has found only one Hebrew word having verbal substitute for Scripture reading.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 From my view, every translation is an interpretation of original language words inspired by One Holy God. All English translations have centuries of historical distance from original Scripture text language and cultural context. European and American cultural expressions embedded in English Bible translation expressions can be vastly different than ancient Jewish cultural context when One Holy God inspired Scripture text. My desire for shaping my faith belief ideas from Scripture text includes wanting to understand Holy God's truth in ancient Jewish cultural setting.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Every translation, including yours, is an interpretation of original language words inspired by One Holy God. I respect your language skills, but trust the majority view on the "It is I" issue.

    Concur every translation (including my own) is an interpretation of original language words inspired by One Holy God. Your choice what to trust.

    Protestant 2015 NLT Introduction ends with:

    AS WE SUBMIT this translation for publication, we recognize that any translation of the Scriptures is subject to limitations and imperfections. Anyone who has attempted to communicate the richness of God’s Word into another language will realize it is impossible to make a perfect translation. Recognizing these limitations, we sought God’s guidance and wisdom throughout this project. Now we pray that he will accept our efforts and use this translation for the benefit of the church and of all people.

    We pray that the New Living Translation will overcome some of the barriers of history, culture, and language that have kept people from reading and understanding God’s Word. We hope that readers unfamiliar with the Bible will find the words clear and easy to understand and that readers well versed in the Scriptures will gain a fresh perspective. We pray that readers will gain insight and wisdom for living, but most of all that they will meet the God of the Bible and be forever changed by knowing him.


    The Bible Translation Committee

     

     Tyndale House Publishers. (2015). Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

    Logos Bible Search for <Lemma = lbs/el/εἰμί> INTERSECTS <LogosMorphGr ~ V???1S??> INTERSECTS is can find "It is I" translations. My Logos library has 35 Bibles: from one (1) to seven (7) verses in a Bible has "It is I" (out of 158 verses found by searching SBLGNT for <Lemma = lbs/el/εἰμί> INTERSECTS <LogosMorphGr ~ V???1S??> where verb "to be" has 1st person singular spelling).


    FYI: time to post my longish comments (draft length warnings), hoping to reply later about rest of @Bill_Coley July 13 post comments.

    

    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    John 17:5 Greek text does not describe any foreknowledge plan, with future realization (none of the verbs are future tense).

    just read what the text says ....

    Jesus was praying for God to Glorify Jesus with the Glory Jesus was having beside The Father before the world existed.

    When Jesus was praying, he obviously did not have nor had been experiencing that glory, but prayed that God would now glorify him. There is no mention in Scripture that Jesus had been glorified or lived in glory before, rather all prophecies mentioning Messsiah's glory place the experience of glory AFTER the experience of sufferings !! Cp. 1 Petr 1,11 - "11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

    Plain and simple truth ...

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2021

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote

    Jesus spiritually experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.

    "Spiritually experienced ..." what do you mean? how "spiritually" (as opposed to what other way or manner)? and how do you - being a man with human faculties - even actually know what you claim there?

    It seems to me you are assuming fantasy and claim "spiritually" in order to not have to actually support your idea with facts ... have experienced folks doing such many times. Textual facts and employing reason and logic don't count, but are dismissed as "human logic not sufficient", but their "spirit fantasy is sufficient" ???

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote

    Learning about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name and ancient Jewish usage provided impetus for me inserting "יהוה" before "Lord" to show ancient Jewish author intent & original audience understanding. Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). If my understanding about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name is factually incorrect, please provide two OR three credible witnesses.

    "Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries" ... note the parts of your statement which I emphasized by bold font face. You, however, transfer what they did in reference to GOD to using it in reference to the Messiah, a human being. Jewish scholars never thought of the Messiah (the seed of the woman - son of Abraham - son of David) as being God (YHWH יהוה ), thus they did not do what you claim they did. You are applying something to a person to whom it doesn't apply and to whom ancient Jewish understanding never applied it.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 Disagreement expressions simply lack Jewish legal basis for execution from what "the text says" in the first five books of the Bible.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 You assume they had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution demands. I disagree.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 No assumption. Results from studying Scripture text & Jewish culture about blasphemy. FWIW: a number of Jewish religious laws & procedures were ignored along the way for Jewish religious execution of Jesus for blasphemy: e.g. Sanhedrin meeting at night (in darkness for a dark verdict).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Please clarify: Do you believe the Jewish leaders had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution of Jesus demands?

    Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 16 Why did Jewish hearers of Jewish Rabbi Jesus want to kill Jesus ? Matthew 26:57-68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:66-71, John 8:31-59, John 10:22-39

    @Bill_Coley June 16 In succession:

    • @Bill_Coley June 16 Matthew 26.57-68 - Because Jesus' answers to the high priest reported that he thought himself to be "the Christ, the Son of God," and the "Son of Man" who would sit at God's right hand and then return.
    • @Bill_Coley June 16 Mark 14.53-65 - Because in response to the high priest, Jesus asserted that he was "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One," and as the Son of Man would both sit at God's right hand and, eventually, return.
    • @Bill_Coley June 16 Luke 22.66-71 - Because in response to questions from members of the Sanhedrin, Jesus did not say whether he was the Christ, DID say that he would be the Son of Man who would be seated at God's right hand, and told the Sanhedrin that they had said he was the Son of God.
    • @Bill_Coley June 16 John 8.31-59 - Because in response to a crowd, Jesus claimed to have heard things from God (v.40), to have come from God, who sent him (v.42), claimed as his "Father" the one they call "God" (v.54), and that Abraham had foreseen and rejoiced over his (Jesus') eventual coming.
    • @Bill_Coley June 16 John 10.22-39 - Because the crowd believed Jesus had made himself to be God (v.33), a perception Jesus corrected when he claimed to be the "Son of God" (v.36), and because Jesus claimed that "the Father is in" him, just as he is "in the Father."

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 18 'In succession' answered "What had Jewish Rabbi Jesus said" while providing no reason(s) for Jewish hearers of Jewish Rabbi Jesus to kill Jesus. To me, Jesus is correct about "Son of God" (The Word) being in One plural unique יהוה God.

    @Bill_Coley June 19 My summary of each of the texts you cited directly answered the question as to why they wanted to kill Jesus. It was BECAUSE of what they had heard Jesus say or do.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 20 Please provide Biblical verse(s) from the Books of Moses that provide BECAUSE basis for Jewish Rabbi Jesus to be put to death for words spoken.

    @Bill_Coley June 21 You asked why in each of several texts Jewish leaders wanted to put Jesus to death. Using those texts, I reported the rationale in each case. You've contended (and I've disputed) that Leviticus 24.10-16 is relevant. I'm not going try to read the Jewish leaders' minds as to on which texts, if any, their cries for Jesus' execution relied.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 23 The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB) that is truly consistent with Leviticus 24.10-16 for Jewish law => blasphemy death penalty from clearly hearing diety words spoken by Jesus.

    @Bill_Coley June 24 I've already demonstrated our disagreement as to the relevance of Leviticus 24.10-16.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 6 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then faith belief idea can never explain Jewish Blasphemy death penalty where Jesus was put to death (cruxified) for who He said He is. Ancient Jewish diety identity expressions were clearly understood by Jewish religious lawyers and judges, who had memorized every letter of Torah teaching words (basis for Jewish religious law: literally knew the letter of the law). Jewish religious lawyers and judges refused to believe truthfulness of ancient Jewish deity identity expressions by Jesus, as stated in Luke 22:66-71, and described in John 19:11 as greater sin.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 I can explain those blasphemy death penalty calls: They were mistakes.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Assertion of 'mistakes' simply does not explain what the text says for Jewish religious lawyers & judges replying about verdict to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus @Bill_Coley July 13 The specific claim to which my comments referred is in John 10.33, where they pick up stones to kill Jesus because they believe he claims to be God. Jesus then corrects their assertion, telling them that he sees himself as the Son of God, not as God.

    Looking back at our blasphemy discussion found your reply on June 16 included John 10.33 specific claim.

    John 10:22-39 LEB pericope "Jesus at the Feast of Dedication" (Hanukkah):

    Then the feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the Portico of Solomon.

    So the Jews surrounded him and began to say to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly!”

    Jesus answered them, “I told you and you do not believe! The deeds that I do in the name of my Father, these testify about me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep! My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish forever, and no one will seize them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can seize them from the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”

    Then the Jews picked up stones again so that they could stone him.

    Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?”

    The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be God!”

    Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If he called them ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came—and the scripture cannot be broken—do you say about he whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the deeds of my Father, do not believe me. But if I am doing them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

    So they were seeking again to seize him, and he departed out of their hand.

    Some John 10:22-39 observations:

    John 10:22-23 Jewish Rabbi Jesus was at the Jewish Temple for the Jewish Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah).

    John 10:24 Jewish religious leaders asked Jesus about being the Christ = the Messiah = יהוה Lord God forever ruler, son of David (2 Samuel 7:1-16)

    John 10:25-26 Jesus answered: "I told you and you do not believe! The deeds that I do in the name of my Father, these testify about me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep!" (Jewish religious leaders were loving something other than God the most => NOT believe Jesus)

    John 10:27-30 Sheep of Jesus listen to loving ❤️ voice of Jesus and choose to obey => Jesus gives them eternal life. Being held in hands of Jesus and The Father does not have a fence to keep sheep from willfully choosing to leave being held by יהוה Lord God => Apostacy is choosing to Love something more than God most, yet hands of God remain open for anyone who wants to repent of their sin and (re)turn to Love God ❤️ first.

    John 10:31 Jewish religious leaders picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy. They understood "I and The Father are one יהוה and/or אֱלֹהִים (elohim is primary word translated as θεός (theos, God) in LXX while יהוה is the second: Deuteronomy 6:4 has יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד where God's Holy Hebrew name יהוה appears twice with אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ plural elohim God of us and echad אֶחָֽד one, unique, alone) so in their belief view Jesus had cursed God => they would NOT believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, as testified by Godly good miracles/signs already done.

    John 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?”

    John 10:33 The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be God!” ("correct" Jewish judgment within faith belief ideas of Jewish religious leaders, but Jesus and The Father knew Jewish Blasphemy judgment/verdict was greater sin => John 19:11). Jewish religious leaders, who would not believe Jesus, used ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) to describe the "man" Jesus. From numerous Sanhedrin trials, wonder how many times Psalm 14:3 "All have gone astray; they are altogether corrupt. There is not one who does good; there is not even one." resounded in the minds of Jewish religious leaders as they heard arguments, complaints, & witnesses to consider for sifting & sorting through various human sins to render Jewish religious judgments.

    John 10:34-38 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? (אֱלֹהִ֣ים plural elohim: Jesus quotes part of Psalm 82:6 => I have said, “You are gods, and sons of the Most High, all of you." that would have brought Psalm 82 context to mind in Jewish religious leaders, who had to know contextual words to find Psalm 82:6 on a scroll that does not have numbering). The Word spiritual portion of One plural unique יהוה God intimately knows/understands every Word of God. Phrase "Υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι" => Son (of/from) The God I am (εἰμι is translated "I am" as Greek text does not have emphatic 1st person pronoun). John 10:22-39 context is puzzling as Gospel of John has this phrase spoken by Jesus: ‘I am the Son of God’ once (the only occurrence in all four Gospels). Matthew 27:43 shows Jewish religious leaders remembered hearing Jesus say ‘I am the Son of God’ when Jesus was being crucified (those Jewish religious leaders wanted Jesus to die for blasphemy judgment).

    John 10:39 The time for Jesus to be killed for Blasphemy verdict by Jewish religious leaders, who would NOT believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, had not yet arrived.

    FWIW: After Antiochus & Syrians desecrated the Jewish Temple ~167 BCE, a Jewish revolt with God's help caused return of the Jewish Temple to the Jews ~164 BCE. Restoring a Menorah, symbolizing the Light of God, had a problem. Jewish tradition recounts search for specially prepared oil only found enough oil to burn one day. Oil preparation took 8 days. Jewish Priests lit the Menorah so God's Light would shine immediately. God caused the one day supply of special oil to keep burning for 8 days until more specially prepared oil became available. Hanukkah celebrates & remembers miraculous military victories & oil burning miracle. Deuterocanonical books 1 & 2 Maccabees have history details, especially military.


    @Bill_Coley July 13 The accusation in John 19.7 - that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God - is clearly correct. Whether their law justified their desire to execute Jesus because he had claimed to be the Son of God is another matter because for Jesus, "Son of God" is a divinely ordained role for him, but one that does not mean he is God. As the Son of God, he has been "set apart" and "sent...into the world" (John 10.36), and the Father is "in" him and he is "in" the Father (see John 17.20-26, where Jesus prays that his followers will be "in" him and the Father, and that he (Jesus) will be "in" his followers; or John 14.20, where Jesus says that post-resurrection, his followers will know that they are "in" him and he is "in" them; or John 15.4-5, where Jesus says fruit production depends on his disciples remaining "in" him and his remaining "in" them. So, Jesus' being "in" the Father is a designation of intimacy, not deity).

    In Luke 2:41-52, the 12 year old Jesus knew His human biological father was NOT Joseph, yet went with Joseph & Mary (His human biological mother). Hence, "Son of God" includes biological father for Jesus being God The Father, along with The Father being God for Jesus (while Jesus chose for spoken words and actions to always do Holy Father's righteous will). "See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that we should be called children of God, and we are! Because of this the world does not know us: because it did not know him." (1 John 3:1 LEB) => being called a child of God is clearly different than physically being the unique "Son of God" (who was always Holy, never sinned, and Loved us so much that Jesus chose to be God's Holy substitute sacrifice for our sins => that we could be called children of God by redeeming Holy blood of Jesus for sin).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Ongoing spiritual warfare is the "father of lies" wanting to "help" our human understanding of Scripture, truth, reason, and logic to embed crafty lie(s), with the goal of turning humans away from truly Loving God ❤️ with all our heart, all our minds, all our souls, and all our strength. Many are the ways of deceptive thoughts & voices from the "father of lies" (wants every human to be tormented in hell).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 If you're saying we're all capable of being wrong in our understanding of Scripture, I agree. But if you're saying my Christological views reflect some of Satan's "crafty lie(s)," then I disagree.

    Concur we're all capable of being wrong in our understanding of Scripture along with having more to learn & grow in God's Love ❤️ & knowledge.

    The Jewish religious leaders who wanted the man Jesus to die for blasphemy thought their verdict was correct in accordance with Jewish religious law (based on the Torah), but The Father and Jesus knew the hearts of those Jewish religious leaders had committed greater sin (John 19:11) in delivering Jesus to Pilate for crucifixion (and stirring up crowds so Pilate was afraid of rioting if Jesus not killed). Fear is one of Satan's "crafty lie(s)".



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then what does believe in Jesus simply mean ?

    @Bill_Coley July 13 It means that I believe Jesus IS the Christ, God's anointed one, the God sent to live, die, and live again as my savior and Lord.

    Observation is my reading of your words with my meanings = agreement. Caveat: at least four words clearly having different meanings for us.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Also, if believe Jesus never thought himself to be God and spiritually did not pre-exist prior to human body birth, then what could the man Jesus truly know about my Father's house in heaven ?

    @Bill_Coley July 13 God can reveal all kinds of things to people, especially to people with Jesus' level of spiritual discernment.

    John 14:1-4 describes many dwelling places in Holy Heaven, with Jesus going away to prepare a place for each disciple. Having read a number of testimonies about people who have been to Heaven, noted awe inspiring stories lack insights about dwelling places and their preparation.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 From my view, we all always read/interpret what the text says using our faith belief ideas. Thankful to still be learning the Living Word of God: Thankful for previous text encounters with God and looking forward to learning & growing more ❤️🙏 Holy God's Love is incredibly immense ❤️

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Of course we read Scripture using our faith belief ideas. The issue is, where did those faith belief ideas come from? Did they come from us or from Scripture? When it comes to my Christology, mine come from my engagement with the biblical text.

    Common ground is our Christology belief ideas coming from studious & prayerful engagement with biblical text, which includes original languages text and ancient Jewish culture for me. Thankful for CD discussions, which are helping me to learn the Word of God more 😍



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 My reply 'With The Father, Jesus lovingly showed the true way to righteous living in Holy God.' answers your questions, especially willful motivational insight. For Jesus to truly Love ❤️ The Father, Jesus had free will to choose. Understanding multiplicity of evil attack methods by our spiritual enemy provided Loving ❤️ motivation for Jesus to always speak in agreement with The Father. Also demonstrated for every human how to live abundantly in One Holy God (reminds me of Proverbs 3:1-10 plus many more Old Covenant passages, the Scripture when Jesus walked on earth).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 But at Gethsemane, Jesus makes clear that HIS will is NOT the same as God's will. HIS will is that the cup be taken from him. It's only because he surrenders his will to God's will that he accepts his fate (Mark 14.36).

    Thankful for reading testimonies about Hell & Heaven by Michele Pulford and Bill Weise, which has helped me appreciate Jesus praying in Gethsemane. (Rhetorical) Who really wants to go to Hell for eternal torment with utter despair & awfulness ? When Jesus died as Holy substitute sacrifice for sins, every location in Hell became the appropriate place of unrelenting, unyielding torment (without God's Love) for Jesus to experience as our substitute. Reading Psalm 22 and Isaiah 52:13-53:12 brings many tears to my eyes 😭 as my appreciation of God's Love ❤️ grows. Also growing is appreciation of => “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’ And then I will say to them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23 LEB) as Jesus truly knows what Hell tormenting awaits for anyone sent away. All authority includes where to place a created being who chose to love something other than God the most in Hell for unrelenting torment. Jesus is Light, who truly knows what is in every dark area of Hell.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 So yet again I ask: If Jesus was God, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from his Father's will?

    Deuteronomy 6:4 has elohim (plural) for God. Your 'If Jesus was God' condition is ambiguous. If 'God' means all of elohim (plural) God, then agree Jesus never thought self to be all of elohim (plural) God => 'If Jesus was God' evaluates to false so then does not matter.

    In contrast, if 'God' means The Word spiritual portion of elohim (plural) God, then 'If Jesus was God (The Word portion)" evaluates to true.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 At Gethsemane, he didn't want to accept the cup of suffering, but knew the Father wanted him to accept the cup of suffering, so he surrendered his will and embraced God's will. We celebrate his surrender to God, but doesn't that surrender - the fact that he said "I want your will to be done, not mine" (Mark 14.36, NLT) - prove that he didn't think himself to be God, and in fact wasn't God?

    Please clarify 'God' meaning in your question: "prove that he didn't think himself to be God, and in fact wasn't God?"

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Why did one who was God need to surrender his personal will to the one who was God?

    Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith is followed by => Therefore, since we also have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, putting aside every weight and the sin that so easily ensnares us, let us run with patient endurance the race that has been set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the originator and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider the one who endured such hostility by sinners against himself, so that you will not grow weary in your souls and give up. You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood as you struggle against sin. (Hebrews 12:1-4 LEB)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Original audience included Jewish scribes (religious leaders), who were thinking about what Jesus said to the paralytic (only God can forgive sins against God so this man is cursing God => blaspheming). Jesus responded to non-verbal deity accusation thoughts in the scribes. Thankful for paralytic spiritual and physical healing => Glorified God.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 In his response to the scribes, Jesus makes clear that he can announce the forgiveness of sins because God has given him the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2.10). Jesus gives authority to his disciples in Matthew 10.1-8, but that doesn't mean his disciples will be Jesus.

    And summoning his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they could expel them and could heal every disease and every sickness. (Matthew 10:1 LEB) shows authority given by Jesus to disciples did NOT include forgiveness of sins against God. Only יהוה Lord God can forgive sins against יהוה Lord God.


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

    Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    The vital point is: "... in their view " !!! The problem => their view was false, and thus their charge of blasphemy was false. They made a false accusation and had Jesus condemned on illegal unlawful grounds. Jesus had not violated the law, nor had he claimed anything that was unlawful. He NEVER claimed to be God !! which the Jewish leaders falsely accused him of having done. They knew Jesus was a man and knew he had not blasphemed and claimed to be God ... but falsely accused him of such.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    To me, 2 Timothy 2 includes Jesus is יהוה Lord in two words by Paul: Lord and Christ (Messiah). The Jewish Messiah (Christ) is יהוה Lord God.

    I see no indication in the text that by the terms "Lord" and "Christ," the author of 2 Timothy means to call Jesus God. To the contrary, in at least two verses, the author makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus:

    • 2 Timothy 2.b, LEB: "Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." --- Grace/mercy/peace from God, who is the Father, and also from Christ Jesus, who is our Lord.
    • 2 Timothy 4.1-2, LEB: "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom, 2 preach the word, be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all patience and instruction." --- The author charges us before God and before Christ Jesus; another clear distinction.


    From John 1:1 Greek grammar lesson implications, truthfully do not expect any text to say "Jesus is God" because spiritual quality of Jesus (The Word) is eternally being God while One plural unique God includes two more voices: The Father (WIll) and Breath The Holy. At times, God's three voices are independent while at other times are unified (at the same time: e.g. Revelation 16:17, Revelation 19:5, and Revelation 21:3).

    Bible writers on many occasions identify God as God, but don't feel the need to identify Jesus as God? They openly call Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, and our Lord and Savior, but don't specify that he's also God? I find that impossible to believe. That Jesus was God would be the single most monumental revelation in history, yet no Bible writer makes the claim, and in fact, most of them make distinctions between Jesus and God that they had to have known would lead reasonable people to believe Jesus was not God?

    For example, to the crowd in Jerusalem Pete called Jesus: "...the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—23 this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. 24 God raised ⌊him⌋ up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2.22b-24, LEB). --- Reasonable people could read those words and believe Jesus was a human ("a man") through whom God did amazing things, who was killed, but whom God raised from the dead. That is, reasonable people could read those words and conclude Peter believed Jesus was not God. And yet Bible writers never declared such an interpretation to be invalid? In my view, no Bible writer said Jesus was God because they didn't believe Jesus was God.


    We disagree about what the text says about Peter's belief, who had seen/experienced transformation of Jesus into Holy Light with The Father speaking before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Peter later clearly understood Breath The Holy voice of God when Ananias and Sapphia lied (Acts 5:1-11). Peter obeyed all three voices of One unique God (and at times, Peter stumbled: e.g. denying Jesus three times prior to crucifixion that is followed by threefold restoration in John 21:15-19).

    There is nothing in the biblical text - especially not in Peter's sermons to which I referred - to support your view that Peter obeyed "all three voices of One unique God." However there IS support in the biblical text - especially in Peter's sermons to which I referred - to support my view that Peter believed Jesus was a human whom God called, sent, and raised to new life.


    No challenge for my faith belief idea about Jesus truly being in One plural unique יהוה God. Dwelling inside the ἀνήρ "man" body, Jesus was/is The eternal Word spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God. When the ἀνήρ "man" Jesus was walking on earth, The Will (Father) spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God was ruling in heaven. After resurrection of Jesus, two voices in One יהוה Lord God rule on God's throne in heaven: Jesus is at the right hand of The Father in Holy Heaven. All authority has been granted to Jesus (right hand of power) while Jesus eternally does The Father's Will.

    I asked about Peter's sermons in Acts 2-4. None of this response of yours engages the content of those sermons.


    Caveat: challenge for me is a numeric percentage about voice portion spiritual sizes in One יהוה Lord God. Three voices are plural & unique in One יהוה Lord God (while have no idea about relative spiritual percentage sizes as three voices are both unique/unified).

    I appreciate your candor.


    One God does not describe origin of God: being was/is/will be (in one Hebrew word יהוה - God's Holy Name). My speculative idea is a precursor to John 17:5 & John 17:24 where God possibly destroyed all physical stuff so God could reconfigure into One unique God with three voices for Love ❤️commUnity , plus design physical realm having The Word holding things together. Not know if The Word existed prior to God's reconfiguration (if ever The Word did not exist is speculation).

    That you call these views of yours pieces of a "speculative idea" is illuminating. I know of no biblical support for your views.


    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then Paul's writing clearly distinguishes between God and the man Jesus.

    In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, then Paul's writing clearly distinguishes two voices of One יהוה Lord God.

    What matters FIRST is what the text says, NOT what you and I "believe." Where in the text do we find support for our views as to how Paul distinguished between God and Jesus? I contend that my interpretation of Paul's view of Jesus and God comes directly from the text of Paul's writings.


    In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, then Romans 5:1-2 is truthfully consistent with John 10:1-21 & John 14:1-6

    Again, what comes FIRST is what the text says.


    My view literally shows my original language study results. (Acts 9:5) "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" => “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting! ..."

    When Saul asks the question "Who are you, lord?" Jesus has not identified himself, which means Saul doesn't know whom he's calling "lord." Hence, he can't possibly mean to be calling Jesus God by his use of the term "lord."


    Learning about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name and ancient Jewish usage provided impetus for me inserting "יהוה" before "Lord" to show ancient Jewish author intent & original audience understanding. Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). If my understanding about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name is factually incorrect, please provide two OR three credible witnesses.

    I don't question your original language skills or Logos software facility. What matters in this case, however, is the context in which the word "kyrios" is used. For example, in 1 Peter 3.6, "kyrios" in reference to Abraham clearly does not mean "יהוה." In Genesis 23.15 and Exodus 32.22, for example and among MANY others, "נָ֤י Lord" equally clearly is not a reference to God. And when the disciples and Paul call Jesus "lord" - my goodness, when Jesus calls himself their "lord" - there is no contextual support for adding "יהוה" in front of "lord." I don't dispute your Logos search findings. I dispute your application of those findings in many New Testament contexts.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 Puzzling faith idea quandary that wants to love Jesus as Lord (master/leader/commander) and Savior, BUT believes Jesus is NOT יהוה Lord God. Appears to have a clear distinction between an exalted human master/leader/commander and יהוה Lord God => denies who Jesus (The Word) is.

    @Bill_Coley July 13 I do indeed make a clear distinction between the human-now-exalted master/leader/commander named Jesus and יהוה Lord God.

    @Wolfgang July 14 The problem is that adding יהוה  to the word "Lord" is non-scriptural adding to the text. The word "Lord" has in all instances where it is used the same plain meaning of "Lord, Superior, Master". It is the context that determines (a) to whom "Lord" is applied, and (b) in which regard that person is superior.

    Observation is only one original language lemma יהוה always => Lord God. Idea 'The word "Lord" has in all instances where it is used the same plain meaning of "Lord, Superior, Master". It is the context that determines (a) to whom "Lord" is applied, and (b) in which regard that person is superior.' reads as an appeal to an unnamed authority (expressing your faith belief interpretation ideas about "Lord"), which simply disagrees with ancient Jewish Scriptural understanding & usage. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). Ancient Jewish cultural perspective is "Lord" meaning יהוה (God's Holy Hebrew name) in thousands of Scripture verses, which were read every year in Synagogue services. Also The Shema was recited twice daily:

    The Shema

    The Shema is not actually a prayer, but three Scriptures that are recited morning and evening each day as a commitment of loyalty to God’s covenant. They remind people to keep God’s Word in their thoughts at all times and to teach it to their children. They also promise that God will care for the material needs of his people if they will be faithful to him.

    Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4–9)


    So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today — to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul—then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and olive oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied.

    Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you. Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth. (Deuteronomy 11:13–21)


    The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD your God.’ “ (Numbers 15:37–41)*


    * Text from the New International Version. Note: The third section (Numbers 15:38–41) is recited only in the morning when the tallit, the garment that carries the tassels, is put on.


     Lois Tverberg and Ray Vander Laan, Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewish Words of Jesus Can Change Your Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).

    New International Version spelling of יהוה => LORD (like many English Bible translations). The Shema daily reciting has 18 יהוה LORD (for 6,570 repetitions of יהוה LORD every year). Contemporary Siddur (Jewish prayer book) also has יהוה Adonai (Lord) in numerous prayers. Chabad.org "What is Jewish Prayer ?" includes historical insight: "By the 2nd century CE, the prayers the way we know it today were formulated." Hence prayers (in a modern Siddur) have historical wording contemporary with New Testament (Covenant) being written.



    @Wolfgang July 14 Turning the Messiah Jesus into "יהוה Lord God" is as false an interpretation as turning Abraham into "יהוה Lord God" when his wife called him "Lord" (cp. 1Pe 3:6)

    Searching Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for <Person Sarah> finds 72 verses. Searching LHB for <Person Sarah> lord finds 4 verses:

    Genesis 20:4 King Abimelech spoke: "my Adonai (Lord)" when responding to God (elohim) about Sarah. FYI: Abimelech name means Father King.

    Genesis 23:6, Genesis 23:11, Genesis 23:16 has Hittites calling Abraham "my lord" (adonai) during discussion about purchase of cave for burial.

    1 Peter 3:6 in LEB shows lord in lower case for plain meaning of master (NOT Lord God) => like Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you have become when you do good and are not frightened with respect to any terror.



    @Bill_Coley July 13 We disagree as to the identity of The Word.

    @Wolfgang July 14 The Greek word λόγος carries the same meaning of "word, message, etc." in all passages in the NT where it is used.

    The 'all passages' idea reads to me as another appeal to an unnamed authority (actually expresses your faith belief interpretation about λόγος)

    @Wolfgang July 14 "When other translators employ "Word" for λογος in the Prologue, they are doing so because of their interpretation that Johannes intends for λογος to represent a pre-incarnate Jesus. ... The expression "God's message" (the λογος of God) is used throughout the New Testament to represent the spoken message about the Messiah and his teachings. That usage is in full agreement with the use in the LXX, where the expression normally indicates "what God said." Rather than propose a new significance for λογος here, the present translator indicates that the usage in Johannes is the traditional Jewish usage of the word. Thus, sayings such as "Your message is truth" (17:17) are affirmations of the coming of the Messiah." (Frank Daniels. (o. J.). NE NT Commentary (Joh 1,1–5), (c) 1999).

    Searching SBLGNT for <Lemma = lbs/el/λόγος> WITHIN 3 WORDS <Lemma = lbs/el/θεός> finds 44 verses, which includes:

    Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat a meal.” So he answered and said to them, “Why do you also break the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother must certainly die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or his mother, “Whatever benefit you would have received from me is a gift to God,” need not honor his father,’ and you make void the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Hypocrites! Isaiah correctly prophesied about you saying, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far, far away from me, and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (Matthew 15:1-9 LEB)

    Then the Jews picked up stones again so that they could stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be God!” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If he called them ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came—and the scripture cannot be broken—do you say about he whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the deeds of my Father, do not believe me. But if I am doing them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” So they were seeking again to seize him, and he departed out of their hand. (John 10:31-39 LEB)

    Now in these days, as the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose by the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the twelve summoned the community of disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we neglect the word of God to serve tables. So, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we will put in charge of this need. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And the statement pleased the whole group, and they chose Stephen (a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit), and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus (a convert from Antioch), whom they stood before the apostles. And they prayed and placed their hands on them. And the word of God kept spreading, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was increasing greatly, and a large number of priests began obeying the faith. (Acts 6:1-7 LEB)

    Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/el/λόγος> WITHIN 3 WORDS <Lemma = lbs/el/θεός> finds 22 verses, but none of them have definite λογος with anarthrous God (genitive), LXX simply does not have phrase: "the λογος of God (theou)" while a couple verses prompted search expansion: <Lemma = lbs/el/λόγος> WITHIN 3 WORDS (<Lemma = lbs/el/θεός> OR <Lemma = lbs/el/κύριος>) that finds 259 verses

    καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἀαρὼν πάντας τοὺς λόγους Κυρίου οὓς ἀπέστειλεν καὶ πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐνετείλατο αὐτῷ. (Exodus 4:28 LXX Swete, Κυρίου translates יהוה) that has definite plural λογος of יהוה (Lord). LXX Swete search results include some definite nominative singular:

    ὁ λόγος Κυρίου ὃν ἐλάλησεν πρὸς Εἰοὺ λέγων Υἱοὶ τέταρτοι καθήσονταί σοι ἐπὶ θρόνου Ἰσραήλ· καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. (4 Kingdoms 15:12 LXX Swete)

    The word of the Lord that he spoke to Jehu, saying, “Your sons will sit to the fourth generation on the throne of Israel,” it was so. (4 Kingdoms 15:12 LES = The Lexham English Septuagint)

    ὅτι εὐθὴς ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν πίστει· (Psalm 32:4 LXX Swete) that reminds me of one sentence => Colossians 1:9-20

    By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the breath of his mouth all their power. (Psalm 32:4 LES)

    καὶ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς μὲ λέγων Οὗτος ὁ λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ζοροβαβὲλ λέγων Οὐκ ἐν δυνάμει μεγάλῃ οὐδὲ ἐν ἰσχύι ἀλλʼ ἢ ἐν πνεύματί μου, λέγει Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ. (Zechariah 4:6 LXX Swete)

    And he answered and said to me, saying, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying, ‘Not with great power, nor with strength, but with my spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty. (Zechariah 4:6 LES)

    ἰδοὺ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι πρὸς μέ Ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος Κυρίου; ἐλθάτω. (Jeremiah 17:15 LXX Swete)

    Look! They say to me, “Where is the word of the Lord? Let it come!” (Jeremiah 17:15 LES)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14  John 17:5 Greek text does not describe any foreknowledge plan, with future realization (none of the verbs are future tense).

    @Wolfgang July 14 just read what the text says ....

    Thankful for my faith belief frame of reference ideas that allows me to read what the text says so obviously The Glory Jesus was having beside The Father before the world existed => shows Jesus intensely remembered continual "was having" The Glory experience beside The Father before One Holy God created the physical word out of nothing.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 Jesus was praying for God to Glorify Jesus with the Glory Jesus was having beside The Father before the world existed.

    @Wolfgang July 14 When Jesus was praying, he obviously did not have nor had been experiencing that glory, but prayed that God would now glorify him. There is no mention in Scripture that Jesus had been glorified or lived in glory before, rather all prophecies mentioning Messsiah's glory place the experience of glory AFTER the experience of sufferings !! Cp. 1 Petr 1,11 - "11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

    Observation is your obvious faith belief idea appears as 'he obviously did not have nor had been experiencing that glory'

    Could Jesus be truly from above (John 8:21-24) without experiencing The Glory of The Father above in Holy Heaven ?

    Pondering one Greek sentence numbered Colossians 1:9-20 has me wondering about The Glory of The Father that Jesus experienced when creating all things in Holy Heaven and on the earth (as Jesus spoke to do Holy Father's righteous will).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 12  Jesus spiritually experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.

    @Wolfgang July 14 "Spiritually experienced ..." what do you mean? how "spiritually" (as opposed to what other way or manner)? and how do you - being a man with human faculties - even actually know what you claim there?

    Physical realm did not exist. Hence "spiritually" is my logical description. Humanly not know The Father and Jesus before Holy God spoke to create physical world (included plans for my human conception & subsequent birth nearly 6,000 years after Holy God created physical world).

    @Wolfgang July 14 It seems to me you are assuming fantasy and claim "spiritually" in order to not have to actually support your idea with facts ... have experienced folks doing such many times. Textual facts and employing reason and logic don't count, but are dismissed as "human logic not sufficient", but their "spirit fantasy is sufficient" ???

    Thankul for textual facts with reason & logic (within my faith belief ideas from many Biblical studies with prayers) so John 17:5 => Jesus spiritually experienced continuously having God's Glory by the side of The Father before Holy God spoke to create physical world.

    Caveat is me appreciating John 17:5 words simply are unable to express the incredible Holy Loving ❤️ magnitude of The Glory beside The Father that Jesus was continually having before Holy God spoke to create physical world.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 Learning about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name and ancient Jewish usage provided impetus for me inserting "יהוה" before "Lord" to show ancient Jewish author intent & original audience understanding. Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). If my understanding about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name is factually incorrect, please provide two OR three credible witnesses.

    @Wolfgang July 14  "Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries" ... note the parts of your statement which I emphasized by bold font face. You, however, transfer what they did in reference to GOD to using it in reference to the Messiah, a human being. Jewish scholars never thought of the Messiah (the seed of the woman - son of Abraham - son of David) as being God (YHWH יהוה ), thus they did not do what you claim they did. You are applying something to a person to whom it doesn't apply and to whom ancient Jewish understanding never applied it.

    On the road to Damascus, Jewish Saul asked (Acts 9:5) "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" => “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting! ..."

    Where Would Messiah Be Born?

    Micah 5:1–2 The ruler is described as having origins or an existence stretching back to the “days of eternity.” In Proverbs 8:22–23, this phrase is used to describe eternity that precedes the creation of the world. So the messianic one coming out of Beit-Lechem (Bethlehem) has existed for eternity. He is human in his birth but supernatural in his origin. A number of ancient rabbis found the Messiah in this passage also. The famous medieval rabbi David Kimchi wrote in his commentary on the prophets: “Although you are little among the thousands of Y’hudah, out of you shall come forth to me a judge to be a ruler in Isra’el; and this is the king Messiah.”


    The Targum Yerušalmi (Jerusalem Targum) adds: “Out of you Bethlehem shall Messiah go forth before me to exercise dominion over Isra’el; whose name has been spoken from of old, from the days of eternity.” With this Targum Jonathan agrees: “King Messiah is born … from whence is he? He replied, ‘From the royal palace of Bethlehem.’ ” The Talmud also applies this Micah passage to the Messiah (Yoma 10a; Sanhedrin 98b).


     Barry Rubin, ed., The Complete Jewish Study Bible: Notes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Bibles; Messianic Jewish Publishers & Resources, 2016), 844.


    MESSIANIC PROPHECY


    Messiah, the Humble King

    Zechariah 9:9–10 In declaring “Look! Your King is coming to you” (Zech. 9:9–10), Rashi insists in his commentary on Zechariah, “It is impossible to interpret this except as referring to the King Messiah, as it is stated: ‘and his rule shall be from sea to sea.’ ” In The Messiah in the Old Testament, Walter C. Kaiser sees four specific aspects to the Messiah’s arrival: (1) It will be marked by spontaneous outbursts of exuberant joy; (2) he will come in righteousness, victory, and humility; (3) the world will be disarmed; and (4) he will proclaim peace to the nations.

    In Messianic Christology, Arnold Fruchtenbaum notes that in contrast to King Messiah as just and righteous, Alexander the Great was a self-indulgent invading king who died in a drunken stupor (65). Unlike King Messiah who offers salvation, Alexander was a man of conquest, destruction, and death. And finally, while Z’kharyah (Zechariah) describes King Messiah as lowly, humble, and brought low through oppression, Alexander was narcissistic and arrived with pomp and power!

    The fulfillment of this prophecy is found in Yeshua’s triumphal entry into Yerushalayim at the beginning of the last week of his life (Matt. 21:1–11). This marked his official presentation as Messiah King, where he instructs his talmidim (disciples) to go to Beit-Pagei (Bethphage) and find a colt that had never been ridden before. As noted by Fruchtenbaum, “The miraculous aspect of this should not be missed. By nature, the animal should have bucked Yeshua off the moment he got on, but instead of throwing him, it submitted to him as Creator and King!”

    For more on “Messianic Prophecy,” see reading at Zechariah 12–14.


     Barry Rubin, ed., The Complete Jewish Study Bible: Notes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Bibles; Messianic Jewish Publishers & Resources, 2016), 883.

    Rashi is one of the greatest Jewish commentators.

    2. Zion’s King of Peace: Verses 9–12. A great prophecy follows. The true King of Israel comes here before us in His humiliation, and coming exaltation.

    “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion,

    Shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem;

    Behold thy king cometh to thee,

    Just and having salvation;

    Meek and riding upon an ass,

    Even upon a colt, the she-ass’s foal;

    And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim,

    And the horse from Jerusalem,

    And the battle bow shall be cut off,

    And He shall speak peace unto the nations,

    And His dominion shall be from sea to sea,

    And from the river to the ends of the earth.

    As for thee also, for the sake of thy covenant blood,

    I send forth thy prisoners from the waterless pit,

    Return to the stronghold—Prisoners of hope

    Even today I declare I will render double unto thee.”

    This stands in contrast to the Grecian conqueror, and it needs no proofs that the coming King whom Zechariah beholds is the King Messiah. The Jews acknowledge it as such. One of the greatest Jewish commentators (Rashi) says: It is impossible to interpret it of any other than King Messiah. An interesting fable is based upon this prophecy, and well known among orthodox Jews. Rabbi Eliezer says, commenting on the words lowly and riding upon an ass, “This is the ass, the foal of that she-ass which was created in the twilight. This is the ass which Abraham our father saddled for the binding of Isaac his son. This is the ass upon which Moses our teacher rode when he came to Egypt, as it is said, And he made them ride upon the ass (Exod. 4:20). This is the ass upon which the Son of David shall ride.” Other interesting quotations could be given from Jewish writings, but this is sufficient to show that the Jews believe it to be a Messianic prophecy. And what blindness that they do not see Him who is the Messiah; but is not the so-called “higher criticism” existing today in Christendom being taught in churches and schools, that there are no Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, much greater blindness? Alas! so it is, and the outcome can be nothing else in the end than the denial of the divinity of our Lord, or Unitarianism.

     Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible: Daniel to Malachi, vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 290–291.

    Please provide two OR three credible Jewish sources for @Wolfgang idea claim => " Jewish scholars never thought of the Messiah (the seed of the woman - son of Abraham - son of David) as being God (YHWH יהוה )"



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    @Wolfgang July 16 The vital point is: "... in their view " !!! The problem => their view was false, and thus their charge of blasphemy was false. They made a false accusation and had Jesus condemned on illegal unlawful grounds. Jesus had not violated the law, nor had he claimed anything that was unlawful. He NEVER claimed to be God !! which the Jewish leaders falsely accused him of having done. They knew Jesus was a man and knew he had not blasphemed and claimed to be God ... but falsely accused him of such.

    Matthew 23:1-13 LEB

    Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. Therefore do and observe everything that they tell you, but do not do as they do, for they tell others to do something and do not do it themselves. And they tie up heavy burdens and put them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing with their finger to move them. And they do all their deeds in order to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries broad and make their tassels long. And they love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by people. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ because one is your teacher, and you are all brothers, And do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your heavenly Father. And do not be called teachers, because one is your teacher, the Christ. And the greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees—hypocrites!—because you shut the kingdom of heaven before people! For you do not enter, nor permit those wanting to go in to enter.

    Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts ("in their view"), whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do.


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2021

    Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts ("in their view"), whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do.

    So you believe and propagate that Jesus was rightfully convicted of and condemned for the sin of blasphemy ... WOW

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus .... you produce many - very many - sweet words and show off your software skills with Logos software .... BUT ALL that is for naught and useless as you miss the point and cement your errors by disregarding context of statements, etc.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    I asked whether YOU believed the Jewish religious leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their execution of Jesus demands. This response of yours does not answer that question. I ask it again.


    John 10:24 Jewish religious leaders asked Jesus about being the Christ = the Messiah = יהוה Lord God forever ruler, son of David (2 Samuel 7:1-16)

    To the Jews of Jesus' time, the "messiah" was NOT = יהוה Lord God. The messiah was a political/military leader through whom God would restore Israel.

    In 2 Samuel 7.1-16, God promises David that though he will not build a temple, his offspring will; of course we know David's offspring named Solomon did just that. Notice the following about the offspring who will build the temple:

    • God promises to establish "the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Samuel 7.13, LEB). It is the leader's throne - i.e. a line of succession to it - that God promises will last forever, NOT the leader himself.
    • God WILL be a "father" to David's offspring, who WILL be a "son" for God, but God will "punish" the offspring - i.e. God's "son" - "when he does wrong, with a rod of men and with blows of human beings" (2 Samuel 7.14, LEB). Do you contend that this promise of an offspring of David who will be punished when he does "wrong" refers to Jesus? Do you contend that the punishment with the blows of human beings that Jesus suffered in the crucifixion was God's punishment for the "wrong" Jesus did?
    • Ultimately, the offspring will continue the Davidic line, which God will establish and maintain forever (2 Samuel 7.16).


    John 10:25-26 Jesus answered: "I told you and you do not believe! The deeds that I do in the name of my Father, these testify about me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep!" (Jewish religious leaders were loving something other than God the most => NOT believe Jesus)

    In this text, Jesus does not claim to be God.


    John 10:31 Jewish religious leaders picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy. They understood "I and The Father are one יהוה and/or אֱלֹהִים (elohim is primary word translated as θεός (theos, God) in LXX while יהוה is the second: Deuteronomy 6:4 has יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד where God's Holy Hebrew name יהוה appears twice with אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ plural elohim God of us and echad אֶחָֽד one, unique, alone) so in their belief view Jesus had cursed God => they would NOT believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, as testified by Godly good miracles/signs already done.

    And Jesus didn't believe he was part of "One plural unique יהוה God," either.


    John 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?”

    Jesus has shown them good deeds "from the Father," a claim that reminds us of Jesus' three-fold declaration that he could do nothing on his own (John 5.19; John 5.30; John 8.28), and Peter's word in his Acts 2 sermon - that God did "deeds of power and wonders and signs" "through" Jesus (Acts 2.22).


    John 10:33 The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be God!” ("correct" Jewish judgment within faith belief ideas of Jewish religious leaders, but Jesus and The Father knew Jewish Blasphemy judgment/verdict was greater sin => John 19:11).

    To be precise, in John 19.11, Jesus says Judas ("the one who handed me over to you") has "greater sin," not the "Jewish Blasphemy judgment/verdict."


    Jewish religious leaders, who would not believe Jesus, used ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) to describe the "man" Jesus. From numerous Sanhedrin trials, wonder how many times Psalm 14:3 "All have gone astray; they are altogether corrupt. There is not one who does good; there is not even one." resounded in the minds of Jewish religious leaders as they heard arguments, complaints, & witnesses to consider for sifting & sorting through various human sins to render Jewish religious judgments.

    The Apostle Paul, who did believe Jesus, also used ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) to describe the "man" Jesus (Acts 5.15). The word is also found in reference to Jesus in 1 Timothy 2.5.


    [I DON'T HAVE THE ENDURANCE TO RESPOND TO EVERY TEXT YOU CITED.]


    In Luke 2:41-52, the 12 year old Jesus knew His human biological father was NOT Joseph, yet went with Joseph & Mary (His human biological mother). Hence, "Son of God" includes biological father for Jesus being God The Father, along with The Father being God for Jesus (while Jesus chose for spoken words and actions to always do Holy Father's righteous will). "See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that we should be called children of God, and we are! Because of this the world does not know us: because it did not know him." (1 John 3:1 LEB) => being called a child of God is clearly different than physically being the unique "Son of God" (who was always Holy, never sinned, and Loved us so much that Jesus chose to be God's Holy substitute sacrifice for our sins => that we could be called children of God by redeeming Holy blood of Jesus for sin).

    There is no textual support for your view that the "12 year old Jesus knew His human biological father was NOT Joseph." At no time in his ministry does Jesus refer to what we commonly refer to as a "virgin birth." For Jesus, "Father" is a term of spiritual intimacy with God, not biological lineage.


    Observation is my reading of your words with my meanings = agreement. Caveat: at least four words clearly having different meanings for us.

    One correction to my previous response. Due to a significant but accidental omission, I called Jesus "the God sent to live, die, and live again as my savior and Lord." I meant to call Jesus, "the one God sent to live, die, and live again as my savior and Lord."

    There is no doubt that we disagree as to the meaning and consequence of some of the terms I used in my response.


    John 14:1-4 describes many dwelling places in Holy Heaven, with Jesus going away to prepare a place for each disciple. Having read a number of testimonies about people who have been to Heaven, noted awe inspiring stories lack insights about dwelling places and their preparation.

    I repeat my contention: God can reveal all kinds of things to people, especially to people with Jesus' level of spiritual discernment - I dare say, even more than people who claim to have "been to Heaven."


    Thankful for reading testimonies about Hell & Heaven by Michele Pulford and Bill Weise, which has helped me appreciate Jesus praying in Gethsemane. (Rhetorical) Who really wants to go to Hell for eternal torment with utter despair & awfulness ? When Jesus died as Holy substitute sacrifice for sins, every location in Hell became the appropriate place of unrelenting, unyielding torment (without God's Love) for Jesus to experience as our substitute.

    The will of one who was God would have been God's will. In Jesus' case, God's will was that he be crucified. But Jesus' will was that he not be crucified. That's not simply not wanting to go to Hell; that's holding a will contrary to God's will.


    Deuteronomy 6:4 has elohim (plural) for God. Your 'If Jesus was God' condition is ambiguous. If 'God' means all of elohim (plural) God, then agree Jesus never thought self to be all of elohim (plural) God => 'If Jesus was God' evaluates to false so then does not matter.

    In contrast, if 'God' means The Word spiritual portion of elohim (plural) God, then 'If Jesus was God (The Word portion)" evaluates to true.

    This doesn't address the question I asked: If Jesus was God, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from God's (his "Father's") will?


    Please clarify 'God' meaning in your question: "prove that he didn't think himself to be God, and in fact wasn't God?"

    Jesus made clear that he believed that God was one ("the Lord our God is one," Mark 12.29). When I say Jesus didn't think himself to be God, I mean Jesus didn't think of himself as the "one" whom he believed was God, the one he called his "Father."


    Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith is followed by => Therefore, since we also have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, putting aside every weight and the sin that so easily ensnares us, let us run with patient endurance the race that has been set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the originator and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider the one who endured such hostility by sinners against himself, so that you will not grow weary in your souls and give up. You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood as you struggle against sin. (Hebrews 12:1-4 LEB)

    The point I tried to make was that one who was God should not have needed to surrender his will to God's will since, as God, his will would already have been God's will. So I ask again: Why did one who was God need to surrender his will to God's will? Wasn't his will ALREADY God's will since he was already God?


    And summoning his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they could expel them and could heal every disease and every sickness. (Matthew 10:1 LEB) shows authority given by Jesus to disciples did NOT include forgiveness of sins against God. Only יהוה Lord God can forgive sins against יהוה Lord God.

    Clearly this is not true when God gives a person authority to forgive sins, as God gave Jesus the authority to forgive sins.

    My point was that grants of authority do not morph the recipients of that authority into the grantors of the authority, whether that authority is to forgive, to heal, to preach, or whatever.


    And while I have your attention, a couple of passages from Hebrews:


    Hebrews 12.22-24, LEB: 22 But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to tens of thousands of angels, to the festal gathering 23 and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous people made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and ⌊to the sprinkled blood⌋ that speaks better than Abel’s does. 

    The distinction between God, whom the writer calls "the judge of all," and Jesus, whom the writer calls "the mediator of a new covenant," is obvious.

    Hebrews 13.20-21, LEB: 20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with every good thing to do his will, carrying out in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory ⌊forever⌋. Amen.

    God - "the God of peace" - raised Jesus - "our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep" - and carries out in us through Jesus Christ what is pleasing before God. Another obvious distinction.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 To me, 2 Timothy 2 includes Jesus is יהוה Lord in two words by Paul: Lord and Christ (Messiah). The Jewish Messiah (Christ) is יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I see no indication in the text that by the terms "Lord" and "Christ," the author of 2 Timothy means to call Jesus God. 

    Observation is your interpretative view of text using your faith belief ideas about "Lord" and "Christ" => "sees" no indication in 2 Timothy text to call Jesus God (seems like circular logic: you "see" in text words what you believe text words say to match your faith belief ideas).

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then all words describing Jesus must NOT mean any portion of God (e.g. "Lord" and "Christ" must clearly be different than ancient Jewish text understanding and usage). Hence:

    @Bill_Coley July 16 To the contrary, in at least two verses, the author makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus:

    To me, idea assertion ' the author makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus:' reads as an appeal to an unnamed authority (while actually expressing personal text interpretation in accordance with previous study result ideas, a deceptive way to reinforce personal faith belief ideas).

    To me, 2 Timothy 1:2b has two voices in one יהוה Lord God => Grace, mercy, and peace from יהוה God the Father and Christ Jesus our יהוה Lord.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 From John 1:1 Greek grammar lesson implications, truthfully do not expect any text to say "Jesus is God" because spiritual quality of Jesus (The Word) is eternally being God while One plural unique God includes two more voices: The Father (WIll) and Breath The Holy. At times, God's three voices are independent while at other times are unified (at the same time: e.g. Revelation 16:17, Revelation 19:5, and Revelation 21:3).

    @Bill_Coley July 16 Bible writers on many occasions identify God as God, but don't feel the need to identify Jesus as God? They openly call Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, and our Lord and Savior, but don't specify that he's also God? I find that impossible to believe.

    Puzzling & perplexing impossibility since believing Jesus is NOT God causes all words describing Jesus to be interpreted as NOT God (reinforces belief that Jesus is NOT God ...). Also belief Jesus is NOT God is more important to you than contrary facts: e.g. John 1:1 Greek grammar about The Word quality was always being God (in beginning: two Greek words are the same as LXX Genesis 1:1 in beginning). The God is more than The Word. Linguistic fact also has application in 1 John 4:7 The God is being Love ❤️ (quality about Holy Righteous God as The God is more than Love).

    @Bill_Coley July 16 That Jesus was God would be the single most monumental revelation in history, yet no Bible writer makes the claim, and in fact, most of them make distinctions between Jesus and God that they had to have known would lead reasonable people to believe Jesus was not God?

    While believing Jesus is NOT God, can any text words disagree with belief ? Declaration labeled as "fact" reads to me as personal faith belief idea.

    Curious about your answer for => If Jewish Jesus was standing in your presence & asked you: "Who do you say I am?"

    FWIW: thus far your CD replies have consistently & clearly been different than Jewish Peter's answer about who Jewish Rabbi Jesus is.


    @Bill_Coley July 16 For example, to the crowd in Jerusalem Pete called Jesus: "...the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—23 this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. 24 God raised ⌊him⌋ up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2.22b-24, LEB). --- Reasonable people could read those words and believe Jesus was a human ("a man") through whom God did amazing things, who was killed, but whom God raised from the dead. That is, reasonable people could read those words and conclude Peter believed Jesus was not God.

    Jewish audience in Jerusalem for Jewish Feast of Shavuot in Acts 2 had Torah learning every year that included Abraham entertaining three "men" in Genesis 18:1-19:29 => יהוה appeared as one "man" for discussion with Abraham (who asked יהוה Lord about how many righteous for ungodly city not to be destroyed) while the other two "men" were angels (sent by God to investigate immoral sexual wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah). Peter used the Greek word ἀνήρ (anēr) for "man" in Acts 2:22, the same Greek word for "men" in Genesis 18:2, Genesis 18:16, and Genesis 18:22 from Jewish translation of Hebrew into Greek a couple centuries earlier. Observant Jewish living also has over 12,000 repetitions of יהוה Lord every year (The Shema, Scripture text, Prayers).

    But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them, “Judean men, and all those who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and pay attention to my words! For these men are not drunk, as you assume, because it is the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ‘And it will be in the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. And even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. And I will cause wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun will be changed to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and glorious day of the יהוה Lord comes. And it will be that everyone who calls upon the name of the יהוה Lord will be saved.’ “Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. God raised him up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says with reference to him, ‘I saw the יהוה Lord before me continually, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken. For this reason my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced greatly, furthermore also my flesh will live in hope, because you will not abandon my soul in Hades, nor will you permit your Holy One to experience decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with gladness with your presence.’ “Men and brothers, it is possible to speak with confidence to you about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us until this day. Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, by having foreseen this, he spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he abandoned in Hades nor did his flesh experience decay. This Jesus God raised up, of which we all are witnesses. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out this that you see and hear. For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says, ‘The יהוה Lord said to my יהוה Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt, that God has made him both יהוה Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified!” Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “What should we do, men and brothers?” (Acts 2:14-37 LEB with Jewish יהוה Lord)

    @Bill_Coley July 16 And yet Bible writers never declared such an interpretation to be invalid? In my view, no Bible writer said Jesus was God because they didn't believe Jesus was God.

    Actually Peter's sermon ends with יהוה Lord and Christ declaration about Jesus (& "Holy One" & "right hand of God" => Jewish deity earlier). Audience pierced to the heart => ~3,000 Jewish souls believed Jesus is יהוה Lord and Christ (King Messiah, eternal ruler, descendant of David).

    Peter's first use of יהוה Lord in Acts 2:20-21 comes from quoting Joel 2:28-32 => “And it will be, after these things, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your elders will dream dreams, and your youths will see visions, and upon my male slaves and upon the female slaves, in those days I will pour out my spirit. And I will give signs in the sky and upon the earth, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun will change into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and distinguished day of the יהוה Lord comes. And it will be that everyone, whoever invokes the name of the יהוה Lord, will be saved, because in the mountain of Zion and in Jerusalem there will be one who is being rescued, as the יהוה Lord has said, and those proclaiming good news, whom the יהוה Lord has summoned.” (Lexham English Septuagint with יהוה by Lord translation from Hebrew יהוה)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 We disagree about what the text says about Peter's belief, who had seen/experienced transformation of Jesus into Holy Light with The Father speaking before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Peter later clearly understood Breath The Holy voice of God when Ananias and Sapphia lied (Acts 5:1-11). Peter obeyed all three voices of One unique God (and at times, Peter stumbled: e.g. denying Jesus three times prior to crucifixion that is followed by threefold restoration in John 21:15-19).

    @Bill_Coley July 16 There is nothing in the biblical text - especially not in Peter's sermons to which I referred - to support your view that Peter obeyed "all three voices of One unique God." However there IS support in the biblical text - especially in Peter's sermons to which I referred - to support my view that Peter believed Jesus was a human whom God called, sent, and raised to new life.

    The "nothing ..." idea reads to me as circular logic again: you "see" in text words what you believe text words say to match your faith belief ideas.


    @Bill_Coley July 13 I openly acknowledge my struggle with the pre-existence material. I know it must somehow be consistent with Scripture's larger message about Jesus' identity, but I find it a challenge to discover that integration. I think it must be a challenge for you to integrate Peter's clear message in Acts 2-4 into your Christology. Is it?

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 No challenge for my faith belief idea about Jesus truly being in One plural unique יהוה God. Dwelling inside the ἀνήρ "man" body, Jesus was/is The eternal Word spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God. When the ἀνήρ "man" Jesus was walking on earth, The Will (Father) spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God was ruling in heaven. After resurrection of Jesus, two voices in One יהוה Lord God rule on God's throne in heaven: Jesus is at the right hand of The Father in Holy Heaven. All authority has been granted to Jesus (right hand of power) while Jesus eternally does The Father's Will.

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I asked about Peter's sermons in Acts 2-4. None of this response of yours engages the content of those sermons.

    Noted my Acts 2:22 & Acts 2:24 comments about ἀνήρ "man" body on July 14 were not mentioned in @Bill_Coley July 16 reply. My sentences 'Dwelling inside the ἀνήρ "man" body, Jesus was/is The eternal Word spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God. When the ἀνήρ "man" Jesus was walking on earth, The Will (Father) spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God was ruling in heaven.' did not explicitly repeat Acts 2:22 & Acts 2:24 references. Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-36 also included right hand of God, which fits with my earlier sentences 'After resurrection of Jesus, two voices in One יהוה Lord God rule on God's throne in heaven: Jesus is at the right hand of The Father in Holy Heaven. All authority has been granted to Jesus (right hand of power) while Jesus eternally does The Father's Will.' Hence, my July 14 reply directly responded about Peter's sermons in Acts 2 along with Christology.

    From many exchanges, have the impression that repetition of Acts 2:22 the "man" Jesus ought to be enough for me to change my faith belief ideas (lacks credibility for me to change). The "man" Jesus is the initial description about Jesus in Peter's sermon, which has poignant reminders for Jewish audience: deeds of power, wonders, & signs done in their midst along with audience wanting Jesus to be crucified 7 weeks earlier. Historical distance from original Jewish culture allows focus on different word "man" rather than audience responding to guilty sin conviction.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 Caveat: challenge for me is a numeric percentage about voice portion spiritual sizes in One יהוה Lord God. Three voices are plural & unique in One יהוה Lord God (while have no idea about relative spiritual percentage sizes as three voices are both unique/unified).

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I appreciate your candor.

    Scripture text has evidence for three voices in One יהוה Lord God, but nothing about relative spiritual sizes of those three voices.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 One God does not describe origin of God: being was/is/will be (in one Hebrew word יהוה - God's Holy Name). My speculative idea is a precursor to John 17:5 & John 17:24 where God possibly destroyed all physical stuff so God could reconfigure into One unique God with three voices for Love ❤️commUnity , plus design physical realm having The Word holding things together. Not know if The Word existed prior to God's reconfiguration (if ever The Word did not exist is speculation).

    @Bill_Coley July 16 That you call these views of yours pieces of a "speculative idea" is illuminating. I know of no biblical support for your views.

    We agree "my speculative idea" has no Biblical support. While pondering Arian idea ‘Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦνʼ—’At one time he did not exist’ with some personal lessons learned of starting over, recognized a theoretical possibility. Holy God truly knows if my theoretical speculative idea is realistic (OR something to toss in file 13 along with other garbage). My Bible studies cannot find any text that Jesus never existed: The First & The Last, The Beginning & The End describe יהוה in the Old Covenant (e.g. Isaiah 44:6) and Jesus in the New (Revelation 22:13) along with John 17:5 & John 17:24 spiritual pre-existence of Jesus (prior to God creating physical realm).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then Paul's writing clearly distinguishes between God and the man Jesus.

    In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, then Paul's writing clearly distinguishes two voices of One יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 16 What matters FIRST is what the text says, NOT what you and I "believe." Where in the text do we find support for our views as to how Paul distinguished between God and Jesus? I contend that my interpretation of Paul's view of Jesus and God comes directly from the text of Paul's writings.

    Actually what matters most is: What is Holy God's Truth in original text ? (cultural context for most Scripture text is ancient Jewish)

    My interpretation comes directly from original language understanding & Jewish cultural usage. Thankful for many English Bible translations.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 In contrast, if believe Jesus is truly being in One plural unique יהוה God, then Romans 5:1-2 is truthfully consistent with John 10:1-21 & John 14:1-6

    @Bill_Coley July 16 Again, what comes FIRST is what the text says.

    Actually what comes first is: What is Holy God's Truth in original text ? (cultural context for most Scripture text is ancient Jewish)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 My view literally shows my original language study results. (Acts 9:5) "Who are you יהוה Lord ?" => “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting! ..."

    @Bill_Coley July 16 When Saul asks the question "Who are you, lord?" Jesus has not identified himself, which means Saul doesn't know whom he's calling "lord." Hence, he can't possibly mean to be calling Jesus God by his use of the term "lord."

    Acts 9:1-9 context is Saul responding to a question surrounded by Bright Holy Light from Heaven so Saul meant יהוה Lord God in his question:

    But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the יהוה Lord, went to the high priest and asked for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, both men and women, he could bring them tied up to Jerusalem.

    Now as he proceeded, it happened that when he approached Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

    So he said, “Who are you, יהוה Lord?”

    And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting! But get up and enter into the city, and it will be told to you what you must do.”

    (Now the men who were traveling together with him stood speechless, because they heard the voice but saw no one.) So Saul got up from the ground, but although his eyes were open he could see nothing. And leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was unable to see for three days, and he did not eat or drink. (Acts 9:1-9 LEB & Jewish יהוה Lord)

    Prior to life changing encounter with יהוה Lord Jesus, Saul was zealous for Jewish ways (Philippians 3:4-14). Saul believed his zealousness was serving יהוה Lord God, similar (if not the same) as Jewish religious leaders (scribes and Pharisees) wanting Jesus put to death for blasphemy.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 14 Learning about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name and ancient Jewish usage provided impetus for me inserting "יהוה" before "Lord" to show ancient Jewish author intent & original audience understanding. Jewish scholarly translation of Hebrew into Greek Septuagint (LXX) preceded birth of Jewish Rabbi Jesus by a couple centuries. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). If my understanding about God's Holy Hebrew "יהוה" name is factually incorrect, please provide two OR three credible witnesses.

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I don't question your original language skills or Logos software facility. What matters in this case, however, is the context in which the word "kyrios" is used. For example, in 1 Peter 3.6, "kyrios" in reference to Abraham clearly does not mean "יהוה." In Genesis 23.15 and Exodus 32.22, for example and among MANY others, "נָ֤י Lord" equally clearly is not a reference to God. And when the disciples and Paul call Jesus "lord" - my goodness, when Jesus calls himself their "lord" - there is no contextual support for adding "יהוה" in front of "lord." I don't dispute your Logos search findings. I dispute your application of those findings in many New Testament contexts.

    One original language lemma יהוה always => Lord God. LEB has lower case "lord" in 1 Peter 3:6, Genesis 23:15 (adonai), Exodus 32:22 (adonai). Searching LEB for ([match exact] lord) finds 207 results in 179 verses (personally disagree with "lord" in Matthew 12:8 and Mark 2:28).

    Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). Ancient Jewish cultural perspective is "Lord" meaning יהוה (God's Holy Hebrew name) in thousands of Scripture verses, which were read every year in Synagogue services. The Shema was/is recited twice daily:

    The Shema

    The Shema is not actually a prayer, but three Scriptures that are recited morning and evening each day as a commitment of loyalty to God’s covenant. They remind people to keep God’s Word in their thoughts at all times and to teach it to their children. They also promise that God will care for the material needs of his people if they will be faithful to him.

    Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4–9)


    So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today — to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul—then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and olive oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied.

    Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you. Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth. (Deuteronomy 11:13–21)


    The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD your God.’ “ (Numbers 15:37–41)*


    * Text from the New International Version. Note: The third section (Numbers 15:38–41) is recited only in the morning when the tallit, the garment that carries the tassels, is put on.


     Lois Tverberg and Ray Vander Laan, Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewish Words of Jesus Can Change Your Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).

    New International Version spelling of יהוה => LORD (like many English Bible translations). The Shema daily reciting has 18 יהוה LORD (for 6,570 repetitions of יהוה LORD every year). Contemporary Siddur (Jewish prayer book) has יהוה Adonai (Lord) in numerous prayers. Chabad.org "What is Jewish Prayer ?" includes historical insight: "By the 2nd century CE, the prayers the way we know it today were formulated." Hence prayers (in a modern Siddur) have wording contemporary with New Testament (Covenant) being written.


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    Observation is your interpretative view of text using your faith belief ideas about "Lord" and "Christ" => "sees" no indication in 2 Timothy text to call Jesus God (seems like circular logic: you "see" in text words what you believe text words say to match your faith belief ideas).

    And yet again you return to the canard you have most frequently implemented in our exchanges: That my faith beliefs precede my "faith belief ideas." Your claim, as it has always been, is false. No circular logic. No self-fulfilling prophecy. I simply examine the biblical text and ask, what does the text say? I welcome you to disagree with me as to what texts say, as I encourage you to stop making false claims about the process by which I conclude what texts say.


    To me, idea assertion ' the author makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus:' reads as an appeal to an unnamed authority (while actually expressing personal text interpretation in accordance with previous study result ideas, a deceptive way to reinforce personal faith belief ideas).

    To me, 2 Timothy 1:2b has two voices in one יהוה Lord God => Grace, mercy, and peace from יהוה God the Father and Christ Jesus our יהוה Lord.

    And yet again I must tell you that the "authority" to which I "appeal" for my interpretation of the 2 Timothy text has a name: Bill Coley. Nothing deceptive. Nothing unnamed.

    I welcome you to your view regarding the "two voices" of the text, but point out that the text itself doesn't support your view. The text identifies two agents, God and Christ Jesus, a list a reasonable interpretation of whose grammatical design suggests strongly that the first agent, God, is NOT the second agent, Christ Jesus. Had the author wanted to convey that Christ Jesus was God, he could easily have done so: "...the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, who also is God." But that's NOT what the author wrote. He wrote, "...the will of God, according to the promise... which is in Christ Jesus." God...and Christ Jesus. A clear distinction between the two found IN THE TEXT.

    If either of us is allowing our faith belief ideas to determine our renderings of this text, it is you, not I.


    Puzzling & perplexing impossibility since believing Jesus is NOT God causes all words describing Jesus to be interpreted as NOT God (reinforces belief that Jesus is NOT God ...). Also belief Jesus is NOT God is more important to you than contrary facts: e.g. John 1:1 Greek grammar about The Word quality was always being God (in beginning: two Greek words are the same as LXX Genesis 1:1 in beginning). The God is more than The Word. Linguistic fact also has application in 1 John 4:7 The God is being Love ❤️ (quality about Holy Righteous God as The God is more than Love).

    I don't have the patience either to correct every occurrence of your false claim about the role of my faith beliefs in my interpretation of biblical texts, or to repeat my encouragement to you to stop making making that false claim.

    What you call "contrary facts" - in my case, the pre-existence material - must be accounted for as part of (i.e. explained in light of) anyone's theology, including yours - for example, Peter's sermons in Acts 2-4.

    "God is love" is not an analogous declaration because we don't also say "love IS God." Love is OF God, or is FROM God, but not IS God, the way you propose that Jesus IS God.


    While believing Jesus is NOT God, can any text words disagree with belief ? Declaration labeled as "fact" reads to me as personal faith belief idea.

    What I labeled as "fact" was that most biblical writers "make distinctions between Jesus and God that they had to have known would lead reasonable people to believe Jesus was not God." That's not a "personal faith belief." That's my statistical estimation of how New Testament writers describe Jesus.

    Of course individual texts can "disagree" with one's overall view of a theological issue (you called them "contrary facts"). But ultimately, whether Jesus is God is a binary choice: Either he is or he isn't. "Contrary facts" must be accounted for, but can't always be deemed as consistent. For example, who incited David to conduct a census? One text says God. Another text says Satan. No text says both. To answer the question who actually incited David, one must account for a "contrary fact."


    Curious about your answer for => If Jewish Jesus was standing in your presence & asked you: "Who do you say I am?"

    I'd say, "You are exactly who you claimed to be: The Christ - God's chosen one - sent by God, whom you call your and our Father, to seek and save the lost.


    FWIW: thus far your CD replies have consistently & clearly been different than Jewish Peter's answer about who Jewish Rabbi Jesus is.

    I welcome you to your view of my CD replies.


    Jewish audience in Jerusalem for Jewish Feast of Shavuot in Acts 2 had Torah learning every year that included Abraham entertaining three "men" in Genesis 18:1-19:29 => יהוה appeared as one "man" for discussion with Abraham (who asked יהוה Lord about how many righteous for ungodly city not to be destroyed) while the other two "men" were angels (sent by God to investigate immoral sexual wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah). Peter used the Greek word ἀνήρ (anēr) for "man" in Acts 2:22, the same Greek word for "men" in Genesis 18:2, Genesis 18:16, and Genesis 18:22 from Jewish translation of Hebrew into Greek a couple centuries earlier. Observant Jewish living also has over 12,000 repetitions of יהוה Lord every year (The Shema, Scripture text, Prayers).

    In your previous post, you pointed to religious leaders' use of "anthropos (ἄνθρωπος)" to refer to the man Jesus (though I showed that at least two NT writers also use the term to refer to the man Jesus). Now you point to another word for "man" and suggest that it demonstrates Jesus' divinity by Greek translation of an OT text. So no matter what word is used for "man," it seems to prove your point. As I said earlier, if either of us is allowing our faith belief ideas to determine our interpretation of biblical texts, it's you, not I.

    My point remains: A reasonable person could hear Peter's word that Jesus was a man whom God raised, and through whom God did signs and wonders as evidence that Peter thought Jesus was a man whom God raised, and through whom God did signs and wonders. That is, that Jesus was NOT God.


    Actually Peter's sermon ends with יהוה Lord and Christ declaration about Jesus (& "Holy One" & "right hand of God" => Jewish deity earlier). Audience pierced to the heart => ~3,000 Jewish souls believed Jesus is יהוה Lord and Christ (King Messiah, eternal ruler, descendant of David).

    Actually, Peter's sermon ends with "God has made him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2.36, LEB) Your decision not to include Peter's reference to God in your report of the conclusion of Peter's sermon is worthy of note.

    And Peter does NOT refer to Jesus as "יהוה Lord and Christ." YOU do, but neither Peter nor the Acts 2 passage reporting his sermon does.


    The "nothing ..." idea reads to me as circular logic again: you "see" in text words what you believe text words say to match your faith belief ideas.

    Rather than repeating your false claim about the role of MY faith belief ideas in MY interpretation of biblical texts, please quote the section of the biblical text that supports YOUR claim that Peter obeyed "all three voices of One unique God."


    Noted my Acts 2:22 & Acts 2:24 comments about ἀνήρ "man" body on July 14 were not mentioned in @Bill_Coley July 16 reply. My sentences 'Dwelling inside the ἀνήρ "man" body, Jesus was/is The eternal Word spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God. When the ἀνήρ "man" Jesus was walking on earth, The Will (Father) spiritual portion of One יהוה Lord God was ruling in heaven.' did not explicitly repeat Acts 2:22 & Acts 2:24 references. Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-36 also included right hand of God, which fits with my earlier sentences 'After resurrection of Jesus, two voices in One יהוה Lord God rule on God's throne in heaven: Jesus is at the right hand of The Father in Holy Heaven. All authority has been granted to Jesus (right hand of power) while Jesus eternally does The Father's Will.' Hence, my July 14 reply directly responded about Peter's sermons in Acts 2 along with Christology.

    Here you conflate your Christology with a couple of phrases from Peter's sermon, but you fail to engage the core substance of Peter's claims about Jesus: that he was a man whom God raised and through whom God did signs and wonders.


    From many exchanges, have the impression that repetition of Acts 2:22 the "man" Jesus ought to be enough for me to change my faith belief ideas (lacks credibility for me to change). The "man" Jesus is the initial description about Jesus in Peter's sermon, which has poignant reminders for Jewish audience: deeds of power, wonders, & signs done in their midst along with audience wanting Jesus to be crucified 7 weeks earlier. Historical distance from original Jewish culture allows focus on different word "man" rather than audience responding to guilty sin conviction.

    It's worthy of note that you choose not to mention that Peter says the signs and wonders done in their midst were done BY God THROUGH Jesus (Acts 2.22), clearly indicating Peter's belief that God and Jesus were not the same. Again, Peter says Jesus was a man whom God raised, and through whom God did signs and wonders. THAT'S what the text - not my "faith belief ideas" - says. What the text does NOT say - but YOUR faith belief ideas DO - is anything about God's multiple voices or identities.


    Scripture text has evidence for three voices in One יהוה Lord God, but nothing about relative spiritual sizes of those three voices.

    We disagree about the existence of the "three voices."


    Actually what matters most is: What is Holy God's Truth in original text ? (cultural context for most Scripture text is ancient Jewish)

    My interpretation comes directly from original language understanding & Jewish cultural usage. Thankful for many English Bible translations.

    What "comes first" and what "matters most" are not mutually exclusive items,


    Acts 9:1-9 context is Saul responding to a question surrounded by Bright Holy Light from Heaven so Saul meant יהוה Lord God in his question:

    I strongly disagree with you here. In my view, the text obviously does not support your interpretation. If Saul meant "יהוה Lord God" then he KNEW who was talking to him. So why did he ask the voice to identify himself?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 16 Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts ("in their view"), whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do.

    @Wolfgang July 16 So you believe and propagate that Jesus was rightfully convicted of and condemned for the sin of blasphemy ... WOW


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I asked whether YOU believed the Jewish religious leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their execution of Jesus demands. This response of yours does not answer that question. I ask it again.

    My Thanks to Holy God includes God's Truth being consistent. To me, John 19:7 declares certainty by the Jewish religious lawyers & judges (scribes and Pharisees) about the legitimacy of their Blasphemy verdict (being right in their eyes). In Matthew 23:1-13, Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts, whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do (hypocrites). Jewish religious leaders & judges were experts at appearing righteous (Matthew 23:25-26, Luke 11:37-41), able to render legimate Jewish verdicts about righteous appearance. God's Words in Matthew 23:25-26 & Luke 11:37-41 showed יהוה Lord God knew inside motives of Jewish religious lawyers & judges were full of greed, self-indulgence, and wickedness => hypocrites, who commited greater sin in delivering Jewish Jesus to Roman governor Pontius Pilate (John 19:11). Thus, my belief about the Jewish religious leaders is they believed their Blasphemy verdict was legitimate (right in their eyes), but really they had sinned greatly against יהוה Lord God.

    Humanly have no idea if those Jewish religious leaders & Pontius Pilate ever choose to repent from their sins and turn to God. Every creature being tormented in Hell choose to Love something more than יהוה Lord God, where their faith belief ideas showed in resulting actions (deeds and words). Agree with Holy God about no desire for anyone to be tormented eternally in Hell while humanly not like what a number of humans do & say => praying with Thanksgiving for everyone to experience Holy God's Love ❤️ so each human can choose to truly Love ❤️God first.

    


    @Wolfgang July 16 => @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus .... you produce many - very many - sweet words and show off your software skills with Logos software .... BUT ALL that is for naught and useless as you miss the point and cement your errors by disregarding context of statements, etc.

    Spiritual warfare observation is יהוה Breath The Holy being specific for sin conviction while our spiritual enemy, the father of lies, encourages many deceptions: abusive speech, anger, confusion, deceit, disorder, envy, excess, foolishness, generalities, gluttony, gossip, greed, jealousy, manipulation, pride, self-indulgence, selfish ambition, sexual sin, slander, strife, trickery, truth twisted with falsehood, wickedness, ...

    Thankful for 1 Thessalonians 5:11-26 imperative verbs => Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, just as indeed you are doing. Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and rule over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them beyond all measure in love, because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the disorderly, console the discouraged, help the sick, be patient toward all people. See to it that no one pays back evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue good toward one another and toward all people. Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in everything; for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but examine all things; hold fast to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, blameless at the coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, who also will do this. Brothers, pray for us. Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.

    After examining all things, holding fast to what is good slowly results in my faith belief changing toward Holy God. My desire: Be Holy as God is Holy => Righteously Love ❤️ Holy God with all of me => Love myself as Holy God Loves ❤️me => Love every one as Holy God truly Loves ❤️



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 John 10:24 Jewish religious leaders asked Jesus about being the Christ = the Messiah = יהוה Lord God forever ruler, son of David (2 Samuel 7:1-16)

    @Bill_Coley July 16 To the Jews of Jesus' time, the "messiah" was NOT = יהוה Lord God. The messiah was a political/military leader through whom God would restore Israel.

    Please provide two OR three credible witnesses for idea about ancient Jewish Messiah (Christ) NOT being יהוה Lord God.

    2 Samuel 7:8 has God's Words spoken by "יהוה Yahweh of hosts" so suggest searching LEB for "Yahweh of Hosts" that finds 260 results in 248 verses. Refining LEB search => "Yahweh of Hosts" God finds 127 results in 61 verses, which includes:

    2 Samuel 7:26-27 LEB => Your name shall be great forever, and they will say, ‘יהוה Yahweh of hosts is God over Israel’; and the house of your servant David shall be established before you. For you, O יהוה Yahweh of hosts, are God of Israel! You have revealed to the ear of your servant, ‘I will build a house for you’; therefore your servant has found courage to pray this prayer to you.

    Isaiah 5:16 LEB => But יהוה Yahweh of hosts is exalted by justice, and the holy God shows himself holy by righteousness.

    Isaiah 37:14-20 LEB => And Hezekiah took the letter from the hand of the messengers, and he read it. Then he went up to the temple of יהוה Yahweh, and Hezekiah spread it out before the presence of יהוה Yahweh. And Hezekiah prayed to יהוה Yahweh, saying, “יהוה Yahweh of hosts, God of Israel who is enthroned on the cherubim, you are the one, God by yourself, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you are the one who made the heavens and the earth. יהוה Yahweh, extend your ear and hear! יהוה Yahweh, open your eyes and see, and hear all the words of Sennacherib that he has sent to taunt the living God! Truly, יהוה Yahweh, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the lands and their land, to set their gods in the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of human hands, wood and stone, and they destroyed them. So now, יהוה Yahweh, our God, save us from his hand so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you are יהוה Yahweh, you alone!”

    Isaiah 44:6 LEB => Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me.

    While being The Holy God of Israel, what is distinct about "יהוה Yahweh of hosts" ?

    To me, includes messenger preparation in Malachi 3:1 LEB => “Look! I am going to send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord (Adonai) whom you are seeking will come suddenly to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you are taking pleasure—look!—he is about to come,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. (reminds me of Matthew 11:7-19 insight about John the Baptist)


    @Bill_Coley July 16 In 2 Samuel 7.1-16, God promises David that though he will not build a temple, his offspring will; of course we know David's offspring named Solomon did just that. Notice the following about the offspring who will build the temple: ...

    Language facts: English verbs always have time aspect: past, present, future. Hebrew verbs have action aspect: complete, incomplete, simple, volition. All English translations of original languages includes human interpretation within personal faith belief frame of references: e.g. WILL.

    While LEB was intended for side by side use with original language Bibles (LEB background is original language interlinear text translation), some LEB translation choices are puzzling to me: e.g. singular Hebrew pronouns in 2 Samuel 7:10 are translated as "them" and "they" => I will make a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them * (Hebrew "him") so that they * (Hebrew "he") can dwell in their own place. * (Literally “under him”) They will not tremble any longer, and the children of wickedness will not afflict them again, as in the former days.

    To me, prophetic aspect of 2 Samuel 7:10 has not yet been fulfilled as King Messiah is not yet physically ruling on earth with true world peace (God's people not tremble any longer), which is consistent with Zechariah 9:9-17

    My reading of 2 Samuel 7:12-15 reminds me of King Solomon doing wrong (massive foolishness detailed in Ecclesiastes) while Loved by God.

    My thoughts about 2 Samuel 7:16 remind me of Matthew 1:1-17 geneology of Joseph, the son of Solomon, the son of David, the son of Abraham while Luke 3:23-38 traces biological connection of Jesus thru the son of Nathan, the son of David, back to Adam, who had been created by God.



    @Bill_Coley July 16 [I DON'T HAVE THE ENDURANCE TO RESPOND TO EVERY TEXT YOU CITED.]

    Noted no comments about John 10:26 identification phrase spoken by Jesus: (has biological father implication from virgin birth)

    Phrase "Υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι" => Son (of/from) The God I am (εἰμι is translated "I am" as Greek text does not have emphatic 1st person pronoun). John 10:22-39 context is puzzling as Gospel of John has this phrase spoken by Jesus: ‘I am the Son of God’ once (the only occurrence in all four Gospels). Matthew 27:43 shows Jewish religious leaders remembered hearing Jesus say ‘I am the Son of God’ as Jesus was crucified.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Curious about your answer for => If Jewish Jesus was standing in your presence & asked you: "Who do you say I am?"

    @Bill_Coley July 17 I'd say, "You are exactly who you claimed to be: The Christ - God's chosen one - sent by God, whom you call your and our Father, to seek and save the lost.

    Clearly different than Jewish words by Peter => And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” (Matthew 16:16 LEB) plus different interpretive meaning for "The Christ"



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 John 10:33 The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be God!” ("correct" Jewish judgment within faith belief ideas of Jewish religious leaders, but Jesus and The Father knew Jewish Blasphemy judgment/verdict was greater sin => John 19:11).

    @Bill_Coley July 16 To be precise, in John 19.11, Jesus says Judas ("the one who handed me over to you") has "greater sin," not the "Jewish Blasphemy judgment/verdict."

    Last mention of Judas in John's Gospel is in John 18:1-5 where Jewish Judas betrayed Jewish Jesus to Jewish cohort. Jewish religious leaders handed Jesus over to Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Matthew 26:24 LEB => The Son of Man is going just as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if that man had not been born.” (clearly different than "greater sin" in John 19:11)




    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 Deuteronomy 6:4 has elohim (plural) for God. Your 'If Jesus was God' condition is ambiguous. If 'God' means all of elohim (plural) God, then agree Jesus never thought self to be all of elohim (plural) God => 'If Jesus was God' evaluates to false so then does not matter.

    In contrast, if 'God' means The Word spiritual portion of elohim (plural) God, then 'If Jesus was God (The Word portion)" evaluates to true.

    @Bill_Coley July 16 This doesn't address the question I asked: If Jesus was God, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from God's (his "Father's") will?

    Your 'If Jesus was God' condition is simply ambiguous (we disagree about the meaning of the word God) so really have no idea how to answer your question without knowing the God meanings you intended => 'If Jesus was God, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from God's (his "Father's") will?'

    From our exchanges, my impression is your faith believes God means One voice so your question is really non-sensical since 'If Jesus was God' evaluates to false. Some days ago, recognized my agreement with you => Jesus never thought himself to be the whole elohim (plural) God.

    In contrast, my "If Jesus is NOT God" condition does not matter about "God" being whole OR part since "Not God" excludes both.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith is followed by => Therefore, since we also have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, putting aside every weight and the sin that so easily ensnares us, let us run with patient endurance the race that has been set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the originator and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider the one who endured such hostility by sinners against himself, so that you will not grow weary in your souls and give up. You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood as you struggle against sin. (Hebrews 12:1-4 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 16 The point I tried to make was that one who was God should not have needed to surrender his will to God's will since, as God, his will would already have been God's will. So I ask again: Why did one who was God need to surrender his will to God's will? Wasn't his will ALREADY God's will since he was already God?

    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then your question 'Why did one who was God need to surrender his will to God's will? Wasn't his will ALREADY God's will since he was already God?' is non-sensical. While cognizant of your staunch faith belief ideas, Could One God possibly have more than one voice ?

    To me, The Word is a spiritual portion of One plural voice, unique God, who has free will to choose, which enables true Love ❤️ expression. Hence, the will of יהוה Jesus is NOT automatically identical to יהוה God The Father's will. Humility of יהוה Jesus included consistently choosing to do יהוה The Father's will => demonstrated for every believer how to truly live that pleases Holy יהוה Lord God ❤️


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 And summoning his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they could expel them and could heal every disease and every sickness. (Matthew 10:1 LEB) shows authority given by Jesus to disciples did NOT include forgiveness of sins against God. Only יהוה Lord God can forgive sins against יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 16 Clearly this is not true when God gives a person authority to forgive sins, as God gave Jesus the authority to forgive sins.

    Why would יהוה Lord God give authority to forgive sins against יהוה Lord God to one who is not יהוה Lord God ? => binds יהוה Lord God to honor forgiveness grants by one who is NOT יהוה Lord God (great opportunity to pervert Holy Righteous Justice and The Father's will)



    @Bill_Coley July 16 The Apostle Paul, who did believe Jesus, also used ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) to describe the "man" Jesus (Acts 5.15). The word is also found in reference to Jesus in 1 Timothy 2.5.

    Observation is ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) is not in Acts 5:15 while 1 Timothy 2:5 => ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος (word play: plural & singular)

    FWIW: Logos search in SBLGNT for <Root = lbs/el/ανθρωπος> finds 565 results in 511 verses. Adding LEB to search allows corresponding results to be highlighted: man, "of people", people, "by people", "a man", "of man", men, person, "to a man", "an enemy", "to anyone at all", ...



    @Bill_Coley July 16 God - "the God of peace" - raised Jesus - "our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep" - and carries out in us through Jesus Christ what is pleasing before God. Another obvious distinction.

    Now may the יהוה God of peace, who brought up from the dead our יהוה Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with every good thing to do his will, carrying out in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen. (Hebrews 13:20-21 LEB, incorporating יהוה translation into LXX as Lord & God by Jewish scholars)

    Incorporating translation of God's Holy Hebrew name יהוה into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as Lord & God shows Scripture text distinction of two voices in One unique God (instead of two distinct beings).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Observation is your interpretative view of text using your faith belief ideas about "Lord" and "Christ" => "sees" no indication in 2 Timothy text to call Jesus God (seems like circular logic: you "see" in text words what you believe text words say to match your faith belief ideas).

    @Bill_Coley July 17 And yet again you return to the canard you have most frequently implemented in our exchanges: That my faith beliefs precede my "faith belief ideas." Your claim, as it has always been, is false. No circular logic. No self-fulfilling prophecy. I simply examine the biblical text and ask, what does the text say? I welcome you to disagree with me as to what texts say, as I encourage you to stop making false claims about the process by which I conclude what texts say.

    Irony is me examining original language Biblical texts with prayers for Holy God spiritual insight since simply want to know The Truth that Holy God inspired. Struggling with original language expressions has greatly helped me understand & appreciate The Word of God. Thankful for Logos & Verbum Bible software having option to hide artificial interpretive numbering of Biblical text (added ~500 years ago for concordance word referencing), which has a number of alignment issues with original language thought boundaries. One result of my interaction with long Greek sentences written by Paul is my own composition of long English sentences. Most English Bible translations artificially break up Paul's long sentences into a number of smaller sentences. Numbering flip side happens where one numbered verse has 3 OR 4 short Greek sentences.

    While learning Greek, became aware of a self deceptive approach in reading a Greek-English Interlinear Bible where my eyes could "see" Greek words & read English interlinear words below & "think" Greek words were being read. My preference in Logos & Verbum Bible Software is having original language side-by-side with English so can "see" original language words in original context along with "seeing" English words in English context. Thankful for visual filter highlighting that allows range of original language morphology to be highlighted in original language and English (using Reverse Interlinear word alignment). Highlighting provides prayer prompter reminders for me about original Holy God inspired Truth.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Linguistic fact also has application in 1 John 4:7 The God is being Love ❤️ (quality about Holy Righteous God as The God is more than Love).

    @Bill_Coley July 17 "God is love" is not an analogous declaration because we don't also say "love IS God." Love is OF God, or is FROM God, but not IS God, the way you propose that Jesus IS God.

    Greek and English are different languages, which have different grammatical rules and spelling conventions. Greek spelling for most words shows grammatical usage, which allows word order modification for emphasis. In contrast, English tends to use the same spelling for most grammar uses, with possessive being the notable exception. Subject, Direct Object, and Indirect Object are spelled the same in English while Greek has different grammatical spellings for: Subject (Nominative), Direct Object (Accusative), Indirect Object (Dative), Possessive (Genitive).

    ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (1 John 4:7 phrase from SBLGNT)

    that The God love is (1 john 4:7 literal translation)

    Greek grammar shows quality of The God (ὁ θεὸς) is (ἐστίν) love (ἀγάπη), which is translated into smooth English as: "God is love" (English translation simply does not show the clear quality distinction in the Greek text)

    If 1 John 4:7 phrase had been "ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἡ ἀγάπη ἐστίν" => "that The God The Love is" => interchangeable equality: The God = The Love (smooth English translation of "ὁ θεὸς ἡ ἀγάπη ἐστίν" would be the same "God is love")

    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c phrase from SBLGNT)

    and God was The Word (John 1:1c literal translation)

    Greek grammar shows quality of The Word (ὁ λόγος) was (ἦν) God (θεὸς)

    if John 1:1c phrase had been καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος => and The God was The Word => interchangeable equality: The God = The Word

    Hence, Greek grammatical implication => God (θεὸς) is being more than The Word (ὁ λόγος), analogous to The God is being more than Love ❤️



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 From many exchanges, have the impression that repetition of Acts 2:22 the "man" Jesus ought to be enough for me to change my faith belief ideas (lacks credibility for me to change). The "man" Jesus is the initial description about Jesus in Peter's sermon, which has poignant reminders for Jewish audience: deeds of power, wonders, & signs done in their midst along with audience wanting Jesus to be crucified 7 weeks earlier. Historical distance from original Jewish culture allows focus on different word "man" rather than audience responding to guilty sin conviction.

    @Bill_Coley July 17 It's worthy of note that you choose not to mention that Peter says the signs and wonders done in their midst were done BY God THROUGH Jesus (Acts 2.22), clearly indicating Peter's belief that God and Jesus were not the same.

    Clearly Matthew 14:22-33 text shows Peter believed Jesus is יהוה Lord, the Son of God:

    And immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, while he sent away the crowds. And after he sent away the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. So when evening came, he was there alone. But the boat was already many stadia distant from the land, being beaten by the waves, because the wind was against it. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But the disciples, when they saw him walking on the sea, were terrified, saying, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Have courage, I am he! Do not be afraid!” And Peter answered him and said, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water!” So he said, “Come!” And getting out of the boat, Peter walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the strong wind, he was afraid. And beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, “יהוה Lord, save me!” And immediately Jesus extended his hand and caught him and said to him, “You of little faith! Why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the wind abated. So those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God!” (Matthew 14:22-33 LEB) Peter cried out to יהוה Lord to be saved from drowning


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Acts 9:1-9 context is Saul responding to a question surrounded by Bright Holy Light from Heaven so Saul meant יהוה Lord God in his question:

    @Bill_Coley July 17 I strongly disagree with you here. In my view, the text obviously does not support your interpretation. If Saul meant "יהוה Lord God" then he KNEW who was talking to him. So why did he ask the voice to identify himself?

    Saul was persecuting humans who believe Jesus is יהוה Lord God, but not his Jewish "יהוה Lord God" so Saul wanted to know Who is the Bright Holy Light from Heaven (definitely not human and not normal nature), so Saul meant יהוה Lord God in his question to the one who had asked Saul: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2021

    My Thanks to Holy God includes God's Truth being consistent.

    While God's truth is consistent, your faith belief interpretation is not consistent with it.

    To me, John 19:7 declares certainty by the Jewish religious lawyers & judges (scribes and Pharisees) about the legitimacy of their Blasphemy verdict (being right in their eyes).

    Yes, however were the Jewish scribes and pharisees correct with their interpretation of Jesus' words and deeds in light of God's truth and what the law in the Scriptures declared? Did they not fabricate a false accusation against Jesus in order to have him condemned to death? They were obviously wrong with their accusation and verdict ... if they were correct then Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and no longer was without sin, thus there would be no savior and salvation from sin.

    It seems clear, that your faith belief ideas about God and His Messiah are contrary to Scripture.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 To me, John 19:7 declares certainty by the Jewish religious lawyers & judges (scribes and Pharisees) about the legitimacy of their Blasphemy verdict (being right in their eyes).

    @Wolfgang July 18 Yes, however were the Jewish scribes and pharisees correct with their interpretation of Jesus' words and deeds in light of God's truth and what the law in the Scriptures declared?

    Jewish scribes and pharisees correctly understood what Jesus said, but choose NOT to believe in Jesus so they believed Truthful words of Jesus cursed God => Blasphemy verdict (right in their eyes)

    @Wolfgang July 18 Did they not fabricate a false accusation against Jesus in order to have him condemned to death?

    Jewish law requires two OR three credible witnesses for legitimate verdict => On the evidence of two or three witnesses the person shall be put to death. The person shall not be put to death by the mouth of one witness. (Deuteronomy 17:6 LEB) & The testimony of a single witness may not be used to convict with respect to any crime and for any wrongdoing in any offense that a person committed; on the evidence of two witnesses or on the evidence of three witnesses a charge shall be sustained. (Deuteronomy 19:15 LEB)

    Yes for false testimony => Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false testimony against Jesus in order that they could put him to death. And they did not find it, although many false witnesses came forward. And finally two came forward and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it within three days.’ ” And the high priest stood up and said to him, “Do you reply nothing? What are these people testifying against you?” But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath by the living God, that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matthew 26:59-63 LEB)

    @Wolfgang July 18 They were obviously wrong with their accusation and verdict

    False testimony by many witnesses failed to find two OR three witnesses about Jesus for evidence => put to death for violating Torah Law. Searching LEB in Law passages (Gen-Deut) for phrase "put to death" finds 44 results in 40 verses, which includes Exodus 31:14-15 and Exodus 35:2 about working on The Sabbath along with Blasphemy in Leviticus 24:16

    After failure by many false witnesses to provide evidence basis for death penalty verdict, the Jewish high priest put Jesus under oath of the Living God with demand for Jesus to say who Jesus is: (using correct Jewish words for identification demand)

    Matthew 26:63-68 LEB => But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath by the living God, that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “You have said it. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes, saying, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have just now heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they answered and said, “He deserves death!” Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists, and they slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who is it who hit you?”

    Mark 14:61-65 LEB => But he was silent and did not reply anything. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him with their fists, and to say to him “Prophesy!” And the officers received him with slaps in the face.

    Legitimate Jewish verdict needed daylight (normally entire Jewish religious trial would have been during the day). Luke 22:66-71 LEB => And when day came, the council of elders of the people gathered, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away to their Sanhedrin, saying, “If you are the Christ, tell us!” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will never believe, and if I ask you, you will never answer! But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” So they all said, “Are you then the Son of God?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.” And they said, “Why do we have need of further testimony? For we ourselves have heard it from his mouth!”

    @Wolfgang July 18 if they were correct then Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and no longer was without sin, thus there would be no savior and salvation from sin.

    Jewish Rabbi Jesus replied to Jewish high priest, who understood what Jesus said, but choose NOT to believe Jesus so believed Truthful words of Jesus cursed God => Blasphemy. Jewish high priest also said: "What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have just now heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" so Sanhedrin members (seeking reason for Jesus to be put to death) became the two OR three witnesses per Jewish law for evidence of a death penalty verdict. They also choose NOT to believe Jesus so believed Truthful words of Jesus cursed God. Hence, Jewish scribes and Pharisees (religious lawyers and judges) proved their hypocritical wickedness by declaring Jesus guilty of blasphemy, followed by delivering Jewish Jesus to Roman governor Pontius Pilate for crucifixion along with stirring up crowd of people for riot (demand crucifixion of Jesus, even though Jesus had not done anything according to Roman law that deserved death) => John 19:11 "greater sin"


    Silence of Jesus during "Jewish trial" reminds me of a lamb => He was despised and rejected by men, a man of suffering, and acquainted with sickness, and like one from whom others hide their faces, he was despised, and we did not hold him in high regard. However, he was the one who lifted up our sicknesses, and he carried our pain, yet we ourselves assumed him stricken, struck down by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his wounds we were healed. All of us have wandered about like sheep; we each have turned to his own way; and יהוה Yahweh let fall on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was brought like a lamb to the slaughter, and like a sheep is dumb before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth. He was taken by restraint of justice, and who concerned himself with his generation? For he was cut off from the land of the living; he received a blow because of the transgression of my people. He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:3-9 LEB)



    @Wolfgang July 18 It seems clear, that your faith belief ideas about God and His Messiah are contrary to Scripture.

    Please provide Scripture with explanation showing what is contrary. For ancient Jewish culture, please provide two OR three credible witnesses.

    After examination (of Scripture and/or ancient Jewish culture), my holding fast to what is good slowly results in my faith belief ideas changing toward Holy God.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 My Thanks to Holy God includes God's Truth being consistent.

    @Wolfgang July 18 While God's truth is consistent, your faith belief interpretation is not consistent with it.

    Without Scripture for examination about inconsistency, am reminded of beam => And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold, the beam of wood is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye! (Matthew 7:3-5 LEB)


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    My Thanks to Holy God includes God's Truth being consistent. To me, John 19:7 declares certainty by the Jewish religious lawyers & judges (scribes and Pharisees) about the legitimacy of their Blasphemy verdict (being right in their eyes). In Matthew 23:1-13, Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts, whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do (hypocrites). Jewish religious leaders & judges were experts at appearing righteous (Matthew 23:25-26, Luke 11:37-41), able to render legimate Jewish verdicts about righteous appearance. God's Words in Matthew 23:25-26 & Luke 11:37-41 showed יהוה Lord God knew inside motives of Jewish religious lawyers & judges were full of greed, self-indulgence, and wickedness => hypocrites, who commited greater sin in delivering Jewish Jesus to Roman governor Pontius Pilate (John 19:11). Thus, my belief about the Jewish religious leaders is they believed their Blasphemy verdict was legitimate (right in their eyes), but really they had sinned greatly against יהוה Lord God.

    I asked whether you believed the religious leaders who accused Jesus of blasphemy had what in a previous post you called a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their charges. From this paragraph of yours I take that you believe 1) the leaders believed they were correct; 2) Jesus believed the leaders had authority to render verdicts whose judgments were to be observed, even if the motives behind those judgments could be highly questionable, perhaps sinful; and 3) the leaders sinned by delivering Jesus to Pilate. What I don't know as a result of that paragraph is your answer to my question: Do you believe the leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for accusing Jesus of blasphemy? I'm not asking about their reputations, motivations, or degrees of spiritual decay - those all can help us understand the leaders, but don't necessarily address the specific blasphemy charge against Jesus - so I ask my question again.


    Please provide two OR three credible witnesses for idea about ancient Jewish Messiah (Christ) NOT being יהוה Lord God.

    We've been down this road before, at which at times a "credible" witness was for you seemingly only one who agreed with your point of view. So instead, I propose these biblical texts:

    • Jeremiah 23.5-8: God will raise up one who will "reign as king," "achieve success," and "do justice and righteousness in the land," a leader in whose time "Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety," and those who were exiled to other lands will "live in their land."
    • Isaiah 11.1-16: A description of the outcomes such a leader will produce, including personal character traits (e.g. "the spirit of Jahweh" on him," "wisdom," "understanding," "might," a "spirit of knowledge and the fear of Jahweh," "righteousness," and "faithfulness") and specific political/military outcomes (e.g. the gathering of "the scattered ones of Judah," the end of contention between Judah and Ephraim, the conquest and plunder of "the Philistine shoulder," including Edom and Moab).
    • Jeremiah 33.14-16: A "branch of righteousness" from David will "execute justice and righteousness in the land."

    Those texts and others I could cite report some of the social, political, and military outcomes ancient Israel expected from their messiah.


    To me, includes messenger preparation in Malachi 3:1 LEB => “Look! I am going to send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord (Adonai) whom you are seeking will come suddenly to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you are taking pleasure—look!—he is about to come,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. (reminds me of Matthew 11:7-19 insight about John the Baptist)

    Malachi 3.1-5 is an interesting passage among other reasons because it uses both first- and third person pronouns to report about the messenger who will prepare the way "before" Jahweh. Curiously, the "messenger of the covenant" is referenced only in the third person.


    My reading of 2 Samuel 7:12-15 reminds me of King Solomon doing wrong (massive foolishness detailed in Ecclesiastes) while Loved by God.

    My point about this verse and the larger 2 Samuel 7 passage to which you referred was that the passage is not about what you called "יהוה Lord God forever ruler." It's about the "forever" nature of the line of davidic succession to the throne, as well as certain human leaders. Your take here as to King Solomon seems to have roots in a similar understanding of the text. For the purposes of our discussion, it's important to note that though the 2 Samuel 7 text refers to one who will have a father-son relationship, the "son" clearly is not expected to be God since he will be subject to punishment when he makes mistakes.


    Noted no comments about John 10:26 identification phrase spoken by Jesus: (has biological father implication from virgin birth)

    I've commented on John 10.25 multiple times in our exchanges. Jesus answers whether he believes himself to be the messiah, and NOT whether he believes himself to be God.

    The verse says nothing about Jesus' biological father. It speaks only of God, the one Jesus calls his "Father" - the same "Father" Jesus says is our Father (Matthew 6.9; John 20.17; Matthew 5.45; and many others); that is, our "Father," too, but not our biological father.


    Clearly different than Jewish words by Peter => And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” (Matthew 16:16 LEB) plus different interpretive meaning for "The Christ"

    You think Jesus would dispute my claim that he is exactly who he claimed to be, the Christ sent by God to seek and save the lost (Luke 19.10)?


    Last mention of Judas in John's Gospel is in John 18:1-5 where Jewish Judas betrayed Jewish Jesus to Jewish cohort. Jewish religious leaders handed Jesus over to Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Matthew 26:24 LEB => The Son of Man is going just as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if that man had not been born.” (clearly different than "greater sin" in John 19:11)

    This is not a priority issue for me, but I'll ask out of curiosity: In your view, Jewish religious leaders (plural) were the "one" (singular) to whom Jesus refers in John 19.11?


    Your 'If Jesus was God' condition is simply ambiguous (we disagree about the meaning of the word God) so really have no idea how to answer your question without knowing the God meanings you intended => 'If Jesus was God, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from God's (his "Father's") will?'

    From our exchanges, my impression is your faith believes God means One voice so your question is really non-sensical since 'If Jesus was God' evaluates to false. Some days ago, recognized my agreement with you => Jesus never thought himself to be the whole elohim (plural) God.

    My question doesn't depend on MY definition of the word God. Use YOUR definition! If Jesus was God according to YOUR definition of the word, how could his will have been in ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY different from his Father's will?


    If believe Jesus is NOT God, then your question 'Why did one who was God need to surrender his will to God's will? Wasn't his will ALREADY God's will since he was already God?' is non-sensical. While cognizant of your staunch faith belief ideas, Could One God possibly have more than one voice ?

    God speaks in many ways, which I guess one might label as "voices." But I can't imagine that any of God's "voices" could utter contradictory messages or seek mutually exclusive outcomes. Were that possible, how could we identify which "voice" spoke the truth? How could one "voice" of God explicitly NOT want something that another "voice" of God explicitly wants?


    To me, The Word is a spiritual portion of One plural voice, unique God, who has free will to choose, which enables true Love ❤️ expression. Hence, the will of יהוה Jesus is NOT automatically identical to יהוה God The Father's will. Humility of יהוה Jesus included consistently choosing to do יהוה The Father's will => demonstrated for every believer how to truly live that pleases Holy יהוה Lord God ❤️

    So in your view, various component voices within the "One plural voice" of God can favor mutually exclusive outcomes? One voice of God can want outcome X, while at the same time a different voice of God can want NOT X, meaning voices of God must surrender to each other? If so, how do you decide which "voice" is speaking the truth?


    Why would יהוה Lord God give authority to forgive sins against יהוה Lord God to one who is not יהוה Lord God ? => binds יהוה Lord God to honor forgiveness grants by one who is NOT יהוה Lord God (great opportunity to pervert Holy Righteous Justice and The Father's will)

    Why does God do anything? Because God is God, and as God, can do whatever God decides to do. For example, perhaps God decided that Jesus would not pervert "Holy Righteous Justice and the Father's will." I don't know, but I don't get to know because, as Job discovered, God's God and I'm not.


    Observation is ἄνθρωπος (anthropos) is not in Acts 5:15 while 1 Timothy 2:5 => ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος (word play: plural & singular)

    No it's not in Acts 5.15. (Yikes!) It's in Romans 5.15. My bad.

    Wordplay or not, the 1 Timothy text still uses ἄνθρωπος to refer to Jesus, which was my point.


    Incorporating translation of God's Holy Hebrew name יהוה into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as Lord & God shows Scripture text distinction of two voices in One unique God (instead of two distinct beings).

    Yes. If you add words to a text, you can change the meaning of the text.


    Irony is me examining original language Biblical texts with prayers for Holy God spiritual insight since simply want to know The Truth that Holy God inspired. Struggling with original language expressions has greatly helped me....

    Given that the content of the two lengthy paragraphs of which these are the opening words is all about YOUR interpretive process, not mine, it's not surprising that it has nothing to say about my longstanding invitation to you to stop making false claims about MY interpretative process, the invitation to which your long paragraphs purported to respond.


    Greek and English are different languages, which have different grammatical rules and spelling conventions....

    Your lengthy excursus into Greek grammar didn't address the point to which it allegedly respond: "Jesus IS God" and "God IS Jesus" both equate comparable items, both God and Jesus are beings (of some sort). "God IS love" and "Love IS God" do not each equate comparable items - God is an entity, while love is an action, a sentiment, a commitment, a devotion, an affection, et al. Hence, God is love is not applicable in the role you originally gave to it.


    Clearly Matthew 14:22-33 text shows Peter believed Jesus is יהוה Lord, the Son of God:

    In the Matthew text, Peter calls Jesus "Lord, " NOT "יהוה Lord," as well as "the Son of God." Yet again you import words into a text in a way that supports your view. As I have reported previously, I could post a lot more biblical support for my views were I willing to add words to texts.


    Saul was persecuting humans who believe Jesus is יהוה Lord God, but not his Jewish "יהוה Lord God" so Saul wanted to know Who is the Bright Holy Light from Heaven (definitely not human and not normal nature), so Saul meant יהוה Lord God in his question to the one who had asked Saul: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

    In the text, Saul asks "Who are you, lord?" of the one who had asked him, "Why are you persecuting me?" If Saul meant "יהוה Lord God," his question then was, "Who are you, יהוה Lord God?" Akin to your asking me, "What's your name, Bill?" or my asking, "I wonder who won the game that the Yankees won?" If Saul meant יהוה Lord God, then HE ALREADY KNEW who had asked him the question and wouldn't have needed to ask.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    After examination (of Scripture and/or ancient Jewish culture), my holding fast to what is good slowly results in my faith belief ideas changing toward Holy God.

    Examine Scripture and leave your "and/or" on a far lower level. Your "ancient Jewish culture" (or what you think that Jewish culture is) may mislead you ...

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 My Thanks to Holy God includes God's Truth being consistent. To me, John 19:7 declares certainty by the Jewish religious lawyers & judges (scribes and Pharisees) about the legitimacy of their Blasphemy verdict (being right in their eyes). In Matthew 23:1-13, Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts, whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do (hypocrites). Jewish religious leaders & judges were experts at appearing righteous (Matthew 23:25-26, Luke 11:37-41), able to render legimate Jewish verdicts about righteous appearance. God's Words in Matthew 23:25-26 & Luke 11:37-41 showed יהוה Lord God knew inside motives of Jewish religious lawyers & judges were full of greed, self-indulgence, and wickedness => hypocrites, who commited greater sin in delivering Jewish Jesus to Roman governor Pontius Pilate (John 19:11). Thus, my belief about the Jewish religious leaders is they believed their Blasphemy verdict was legitimate (right in their eyes), but really they had sinned greatly against יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 18 I asked whether you believed the religious leaders who accused Jesus of blasphemy had what in a previous post you called a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their charges.

    Thankful for web browser having find in page so searched comments in this CD thread for legitimate:

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 5 Disagreement expressions simply lack Jewish legal basis for execution from what "the text says" in the first five books of the Bible.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 You assume they had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution demands. I disagree.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 No assumption. Results from studying Scripture text & Jewish culture about blasphemy. FWIW: a number of Jewish religious laws & procedures were ignored along the way for Jewish religious execution of Jesus for blasphemy: e.g. Sanhedrin meeting at night (in darkness for a dark verdict).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Please clarify: Do you believe the Jewish leaders had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution of Jesus demands?

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I asked whether YOU believed the Jewish religious leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their execution of Jesus demands. This response of yours does not answer that question. I ask it again.

    Found first use of phrase legitimate "legal basis" by @Bill_Coley on July 7 with my three responses to your "legitimate 'legal basis'" replies.

    @Bill_Coley July 19 From this paragraph of yours I take that you believe 1) the leaders believed they were correct; 2) Jesus believed the leaders had authority to render verdicts whose judgments were to be observed, even if the motives behind those judgments could be highly questionable, perhaps sinful; and 3) the leaders sinned by delivering Jesus to Pilate. What I don't know as a result of that paragraph is your answer to my question: Do you believe the leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for accusing Jesus of blasphemy? I'm not asking about their reputations, motivations, or degrees of spiritual decay - those all can help us understand the leaders, but don't necessarily address the specific blasphemy charge against Jesus - so I ask my question again.

    Please provide what Yes and No means to you for your question 'Do you believe the leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for accusing Jesus of blasphemy?

    My apologies for being unable to read your mind so honestly do not know what your "legitimate 'legal basis'" question is seeking (& not know if my answer is Yes, No, partially Yes, partially No, or neither). Agree with your summary of my paragraph plus sin against יהוה Lord God also included Jewish religious leaders NOT believing truthful deity expressions by Jesus, which were interpreted as cursing God => Blasphemy.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Please provide two OR three credible witnesses for idea about ancient Jewish Messiah (Christ) NOT being יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 19 We've been down this road before, at which at times a "credible" witness was for you seemingly only one who agreed with your point of view. 

    CD Thread Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? comments on page 14 include:

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus March 23 Without two or three verifiable witnesses, idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply lacks credibility (still not know of any factual evidence about any Psalm not written by/for anyone named in Psalm title). To me, a bibliography can have many entries, but my current bibliography for idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply has nothing (puzzled by evasive rationale, which implies not one verifiable factual witness found).


    @Bill_Coley March 24 Here are two witnesses, though I doubt you will accept them as "verifiable":

    -- (1) Personal Names. The superscriptions of seventy-three psalms mention David; others mention Jeduthun (Psalms 39; 62; 77; see 1 Chr 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Heman (Psalm 88; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6; 6:17; 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Ethan (Psalm 89; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6), Solomon (Psalms 72; 127), Moses (Psalm 90), the Korahites (Psalms 42; 44–49; 84–85; 87–88), and the Asaphites (Psalms 50; 73–83). While it is possible in some cases that these names indicate authorship (see above on the personal/historical method), it is more likely that they originated in the process of collection. David, for instance, was remembered as the initiator of psalmody in worship (see 1 Chr 16:7–43). To be sure, the chronicler wrote hundreds of years after the actual time of David, but the memory may be an ancient one. In any case, it is more likely that many psalms were attributed to David as a result of this memory rather than as a result of Davidic authorship. Similarly, the process of collection accounts for the association of thirteen psalms with specific moments in David’s life (see Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; 142). These references should not be construed as historically accurate, but neither should they be dismissed as irrelevant. Rather, they provide an illustrative narrative context for hearing and interpreting particular psalms as well as a clue to the appropriateness of imagining narrative contexts for other psalms that do not contain superscriptions.

    Mccann, J. C., Jr. (1994–2004). The Book of Psalms. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 4, pp. 655–656). Nashville: Abingdon Press.


    -- 4. Historical Interpretation. These approaches existed alongside historical interpretations, and one of the ‘senses’ which Scripture was believed to possess was the historical, even when greater value was placed upon the other interpretations. Attempts at providing historical occasions for the creation of the psalms, often in the life of David, can be seen in the headings of many of them. It is probable that these are not original but were added later (the LXX contains headings which are absent from the Heb., or additions to headings, in some forty-four psalms: e.g. Ps 70 (MT 71): ‘Of (by) David, of the sons of Jonadab, and of the first who were taken captive’, and Ps 143 (MT 144): ‘Of (by) David, concerning Goliath’). Some of the traditions found in these titles are echoed in the Mishnah (e.g. M. Tamid 7.4 sets out the seven psalms which ‘the levites used to sing in the Temple’ on each of the days of the week: Ps 24 (LXX ‘A psalm of (by) David on the first day of the week’); 48 (LXX ‘on the second day of the week’); 82; 94 (LXX ‘on the fourth day of the week’); 81 (the Old Latin has ‘fifth day of the week’); 93 (LXX ‘on the day before the sabbath when the earth was inhabited; praise of a song of David’); 92, where the MT has ‘A Song for the Sabbath Day’, showing that they are genuinely Jewish and not peculiar to the Old Greek version. When, according to Mark, Jesus quoted Ps 110 (Mk 12:36), both he and his hearers accepted that David had written the psalm and that its meaning was to be found in that context. The historical interpretation came to the forefront of psalm study from the time of the Enlightenment, and much modern study has been devoted to determining the date and authorship of individual psalms. Conservative scholars presented arguments for Davidic authorship, while liberal ones proposed a wide range of datings, some as late as the second century BCE.

    Barton, J., & Muddiman, J. (Eds.). (2001). Oxford Bible Commentary (Job 42:1). New York: Oxford University Press.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus March 26 Disappointed that two or three verifiable factual witnesses have not been proffered to give your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" honest credibility.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus March 26 Noticed both quoted resources included appeals to unnamed authority: "It is more likely ..., It is probable ..." (confirms opinions being different). Seems opinions about later composition of Psalms ignores King David having musical instruments made to Praise God 1 Chronicles 23:5 plus organizing Musicians in 1 Chronicles 25.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus April 1 Disappointed by lack of scholarly sources cited for "It is more likely ..." & "It is probable ..." so cannot investigate: e.g. What was likely/probable assessment criteria ? New Interpreter's Bible preface includes three lists of people: Editorial Board, Consultants, & Contributors (seems current scholarship assumes older critical scholarship is credible and obviously well known)

    Searching "New Interpreter’s Bible, Volumes I–XII" for "It is more likely" OR "it is more probable" finds 81 results in 75 articles (not know how many scholarly appeals to an unknown authority assume older human scholarship is credible => readers should blindly believe author opinions).

    Proverbs 18:17 NLT => The first to speak in court sounds right — until the cross-examination begins.

    Holy God Truth is consistent so is not threatened by examination. 1 Thessalonians 5:11-26 has many imperative verbs. After examination (of Scripture and/or ancient Jewish culture), my holding fast to what is good slowly results in my faith belief ideas changing toward Holy God.


    @Bill_Coley July 19 So instead, I propose these biblical texts:

    Prefer biblical texts for Scripture based discussion.

    @Bill_Coley July 19 * Jeremiah 23.5-8: God will raise up one who will "reign as king," "achieve success," and "do justice and righteousness in the land," a leader in whose time "Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety," and those who were exiled to other lands will "live in their land."

    @Bill_Coley July 19 * Isaiah 11.1-16: A description of the outcomes such a leader will produce, including personal character traits (e.g. "the spirit of Jahweh" on him," "wisdom," "understanding," "might," a "spirit of knowledge and the fear of Jahweh," "righteousness," and "faithfulness") and specific political/military outcomes (e.g. the gathering of "the scattered ones of Judah," the end of contention between Judah and Ephraim, the conquest and plunder of "the Philistine shoulder," including Edom and Moab).

    @Bill_Coley July 19 * Jeremiah 33.14-16: A "branch of righteousness" from David will "execute justice and righteousness in the land."

    @Bill_Coley July 19 Those texts and others I could cite report some of the social, political, and military outcomes ancient Israel expected from their messiah.

    Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Jeremiah 33:14-6 texts say the "branch of righteousness" from David name includes יהוה (makes my point The Messiah is יהוה)

    “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ (Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB, Yahweh translates יהוה)

    ‘Look, days are coming,’ declares יהוה Yahweh, ‘and I will fulfill the good promise that I promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days and in that time I will make a branch of righteousness sprout for David, and he will execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely, and this is what they shall call it: “יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.” ’ (Jeremiah 33:16 LEB)

    The Messiah's name יהוה צדקנו could be translated "יהוה Yahweh צדקנו Righteousness We" (Righteousness has 1st Person plural pronoun suffix).

    Isaiah 11:1 branch is Hebrew נֵצֶר nêtser that has word play opportunity => Nazareth ( Ναζαρέτ ), n-tz-r is a transliteration of נצר

    The name “Nazareth” is derived from the Hebrew word netzer, which means “a sprout.” Netzer was a term of contempt. When a tree is hewn down, a small green shoot springs up out of the stump. A Hebrew seeing such a shoot would have used the word netzer. “It is just a sprout,” he would have said. “The tree is gone. Of what use is this shoot?” Similarly Nazareth was just a small town on a hillside hemmed in by fifteen higher hills. It was a town of Galilee, an area that had a mixed population and was often contemptuously called by the Jews “Galilee of the Gentiles.”

    Scofield says that probably there is a reference in Matthew 2:23 to Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.” “Branch” is a translation of the same word from which “Nazareth” is derived (netzer). Thus Jesus the Nazarene is identified not only with Nazareth, but also with a Messianic title in the Old Testament.[9] Jesus, though a Bethlehemite, carried the name of Nazareth with Him, a name that expressed the contempt of those who despised and rejected Him.


     John Phillips, Exploring the Gospel of Matthew: An Expository Commentary, The John Phillips Commentary Series (Kregel Publications; WORDsearch, 2014), Mt 2:21–23.

    FYI: changing CD bullet list format to paragraph causes links and bold/italic text to be removed (software buggy)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 To me, includes messenger preparation in Malachi 3:1 LEB => “Look! I am going to send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord (Adonai) whom you are seeking will come suddenly to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you are taking pleasure—look!—he is about to come,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. (reminds me of Matthew 11:7-19 insight about John the Baptist)

    @Bill_Coley July 19 Malachi 3.1-5 is an interesting passage among other reasons because it uses both first- and third person pronouns to report about the messenger who will prepare the way "before" Jahweh. Curiously, the "messenger of the covenant" is referenced only in the third person.

    Phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are also third person. Another mix of first and third pronouns is in Isaiah 44:6 LEB => Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Noted no comments about John 10:26 identification phrase spoken by Jesus: (has biological father implication from virgin birth)

    @Bill_Coley July 19 I've commented on John 10.25 multiple times in our exchanges. Jesus answers whether he believes himself to be the messiah, and NOT whether he believes himself to be God.

    @Bill_Coley July 19 The verse says nothing about Jesus' biological father. It speaks only of God, the one Jesus calls his "Father" - the same "Father" Jesus says is our Father (Matthew 6.9; John 20.17; Matthew 5.45; and many others); that is, our "Father," too, but not our biological father.

    Human name analogy: if Mr Bill Coley & Mr Bill Coley's Father are in the same room and both had spoken. Who does "Mr Coley said ..." refer to ? Both Mr Bill Coley & Mr Bill Coley's Father share Coley family name so either one can be called Mr Coley.

    Searching LEB New Testament for name BEFORE 3 WORDS Father finds:

    Matthew 28.19 => Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

    John 10:25 => Jesus answered them, “I told you and you do not believe! The deeds that I do in the name of my Father, these testify about me.

    Revelation 3:5 => The one who conquers in this way will be dressed in white clothing, and I will never erase his name from the book of life, and I will declare his name before my Father and before his angels.

    Revelation 14:1 => And I looked, and behold, the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him one hundred forty-four thousand who had his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Curious about your answer for => If Jewish Jesus was standing in your presence & asked you: "Who do you say I am?"

    @Bill_Coley July 17 I'd say, "You are exactly who you claimed to be: The Christ - God's chosen one - sent by God, whom you call your and our Father, to seek and save the lost.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Clearly different than Jewish words by Peter => And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” (Matthew 16:16 LEB) plus different interpretive meaning for "The Christ"

    @Bill_Coley July 19 You think Jesus would dispute my claim that he is exactly who he claimed to be, the Christ sent by God to seek and save the lost (Luke 19.10)?

    Your definition of "The Christ" leaves out יהוה Lord God => incomplete about who יהוה Jesus claimed to be: "I am the Son of יהוה God" (John 10:36)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Last mention of Judas in John's Gospel is in John 18:1-5 where Jewish Judas betrayed Jewish Jesus to Jewish cohort. Jewish religious leaders handed Jesus over to Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Matthew 26:24 LEB => The Son of Man is going just as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if that man had not been born.” (clearly different than "greater sin" in John 19:11)

    @Bill_Coley July 19 This is not a priority issue for me, but I'll ask out of curiosity: In your view, Jewish religious leaders (plural) were the "one" (singular) to whom Jesus refers in John 19.11?

    Certain One in John 11:49-52 is Caiaphas, Jewish High Priest. Another plausibility for "one" in John 19:11 is Jewish Sanhedrin (One Supreme Court).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 If believe Jesus is NOT God, then your question 'Why did one who was God need to surrender his will to God's will? Wasn't his will ALREADY God's will since he was already God?' is non-sensical. While cognizant of your staunch faith belief ideas, Could One God possibly have more than one voice ?

    @Bill_Coley July 19 God speaks in many ways, which I guess one might label as "voices."

    Searching LEB for voice heaven finds 58 results in 28 verses, which includes:

    2 Samuel 22:14 יהוה Yahweh thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice.

    Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

    John 12:28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have both glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

    @Bill_Coley July 19 But I can't imagine that any of God's "voices" could utter contradictory messages or seek mutually exclusive outcomes. Were that possible, how could we identify which "voice" spoke the truth? How could one "voice" of God explicitly NOT want something that another "voice" of God explicitly wants?

    Psalm 89 includes "assembly of the holy ones" and "council of the holy ones" that are currently a mystery for me (am desiring to Be Holy as God is Holy, but am a human work in progress). Free Loving ❤️  Will discussion & decision making inside Holy יהוה is a mystery to me: all three voices in One plural unique יהוה God have been faithfully & truthfully consistent in my human experience.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 To me, The Word is a spiritual portion of One plural voice, unique God, who has free will to choose, which enables true Love ❤️ expression. Hence, the will of יהוה Jesus is NOT automatically identical to יהוה God The Father's will. Humility of יהוה Jesus included consistently choosing to do יהוה The Father's will => demonstrated for every believer how to truly live that pleases Holy יהוה Lord God ❤️

    @Bill_Coley July 19 So in your view, various component voices within the "One plural voice" of God can favor mutually exclusive outcomes? One voice of God can want outcome X, while at the same time a different voice of God can want NOT X, meaning voices of God must surrender to each other? If so, how do you decide which "voice" is speaking the truth?

    Currently not aware of credible contradictory "voice" message(s) from Holy יהוה to human(s). Do desire to hear Holy יהוה voices and Obey. Do trust Holy יהוה knowing how everything fits together to Glorify יהוה



    FYI: time to post my longish comments (draft length warning), hoping to reply later about rest of @Bill_Coley July 19 post comments.


    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

    Found first use of phrase legitimate "legal basis" by @Bill_Coley on July 7 with my three responses to your "legitimate 'legal basis'" replies.

    When you revisit the question I asked about the "legal basis," you'll note that the word "legitimate" was inside the double quotation marks along with the words "legal basis," but OUTSIDE the single quotation marks that contained those two words. By doing so, I meant to quote my previous post, but to set apart YOUR WORDS - "legal basis" - contained in that post from my words. So in the phrase, "legitimate 'legal basis'," "legitimate" was my word and "legal basis" were your words.

    So I'm asking you essentially two questions:

    • Do you believe the religious leaders had a legal basis for their blasphemy charge against Jesus?
    • If so, do you believe that legal basis was legitimate?

    What does "legitimate" mean? Defensible. Justified. Appropriate.


    CD Thread Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? comments on page 14 include:

    The example you cite from another of our exchanges demonstrates the truth of my claim that for you, a "credible" authority is one who agrees with your position.


    Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Jeremiah 33:14-6 texts say the "branch of righteousness" from David name includes יהוה (makes my point The Messiah is יהוה)

    Neither of those passages says the one God will raise up will be God. Both say the one God will raise up will be a political and military leader... which is my point.


    Human name analogy: if Mr Bill Coley & Mr Bill Coley's Father are in the same room and both had spoken. Who does "Mr Coley said ..." refer to ? Both Mr Bill Coley & Mr Bill Coley's Father share Coley family name so either one can be called Mr Coley.

    Your example cites a relationship between two human beings. When Jesus calls God his and our "Father," he's referring to a relationship between a human being and a deity. Human beings typically limit the definition of "father" when applied to themselves to paternal parentage. But when Jesus calls God his and our "Father," he's referring to spiritual intimacy, not biological parentage.

    Please address this question directly: When Jesus says God is OUR, as well as his, "Father," (Matthew 6.8; Matthew 10.20; John 20.17, et al) is he saying God is also our biological father? Specifically I ask you about Matthew 23.29, in which Jesus instructs us not to call anyone on earth our "father" since our "Father" is in heaven. Does he mean God is our biological father?


    Your definition of "The Christ" leaves out יהוה Lord God => incomplete about who יהוה Jesus claimed to be: "I am the Son of יהוה God" (John 10:36)

    My definition of "the Christ" does not identify Jesus as "יהוה Lord God" because the word "Christ" does not mean "יהוה Lord God;" it means "anointed one" or "chosen one."

    Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be the Son of God - which I understand to be a role or office that conveys both purpose and intimacy - but he never claimed to be God.


    Certain One in John 11:49-52 is Caiaphas, Jewish High Priest. Another plausibility for "one" in John 19:11 is Jewish Sanhedrin (One Supreme Court).

    Upon more careful review, I think it's fair to say that Jesus' reference to the "one" who handed him over to Pilate is not likely Judas, as I previously suggested, but rather some combination of people that includes high priests. In John 18.35, Pilate tells Jesus, "[y]our people and the chief priests handed you over to me!" and Jesus does not challenge Pilate's characterization.

    The larger point of the contention in which I originally made that inaccurate observation, however, remains unchanged: For Jesus in the context of the statement, it was people who had the "greater sin," not the "Blasphemy judgment/verdict," as you initially contended.


    Currently not aware of credible contradictory "voice" message(s) from Holy יהוה to human(s). Do desire to hear Holy יהוה voices and Obey. Do trust Holy יהוה knowing how everything fits together to Glorify יהוה

    I don't claim there were contradictory "'voice' messages from Holy יהוה." God's message to Jesus in Gethsemane was clear and consistent: He was to accept the cup of suffering that awaited him, which meant Jesus had to surrender his own will that the cup of suffering be taken from him (Matthew 26.39).

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Posts: 1,180

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Why would יהוה Lord God give authority to forgive sins against יהוה Lord God to one who is not יהוה Lord God ? => binds יהוה Lord God to honor forgiveness grants by one who is NOT יהוה Lord God (great opportunity to pervert Holy Righteous Justice and The Father's will)

    @Bill_Coley July 19 Why does God do anything? Because God is God, and as God, can do whatever God decides to do. For example, perhaps God decided that Jesus would not pervert "Holy Righteous Justice and the Father's will." I don't know, but I don't get to know because, as Job discovered, God's God and I'm not.

    We agree Holy יהוה God is Holy יהוה God (all we humans are not) => reason for my thought of יהוה Lord God giving authority to forgive sins against יהוה Lord God to one who is not יהוה Lord God being impossible & impractical (especially a human who inherited sin-stained spiritual nature from Adam).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Incorporating translation of God's Holy Hebrew name יהוה into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as Lord & God shows Scripture text distinction of two voices in One unique God (instead of two distinct beings).

    @Bill_Coley July 19 Yes. If you add words to a text, you can change the meaning of the text.

    Holy יהוה God truth is consistent. Adding God's Holy Hebrew name יהוה into English translation simply shows Holy יהוה God truth: adding יהוה only for Lord & God in Biblical context, consistent with ancient Jewish verbal usage of Lord & God as shown by translation into Greek Septuagint (LXX).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Irony is me examining original language Biblical texts with prayers for Holy God spiritual insight since simply want to know The Truth that Holy God inspired. Struggling with original language expressions has greatly helped me....

    @Bill_Coley July 19 Given that the content of the two lengthy paragraphs of which these are the opening words is all about YOUR interpretive process, not mine, it's not surprising that it has nothing to say about my longstanding invitation to you to stop making false claims about MY interpretative process, the invitation to which your long paragraphs purported to respond.

    We disagree about validity of your interpretative process and your authoritative text expression. Another irony is your encouragement for others to identify their interpretative views as being their own while your preference is expressing your Scripture text interpretation as an appeal to an unnamed authority (implies your view of your text interpretation is correct, right in your eyes, while other views are wrong in your opinion).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Greek and English are different languages, which have different grammatical rules and spelling conventions....

    @Bill_Coley July 19 Your lengthy excursus into Greek grammar didn't address the point to which it allegedly respond: "Jesus IS God" and "God IS Jesus" both equate comparable items, both God and Jesus are beings (of some sort). "God IS love" and "Love IS God" do not each equate comparable items - God is an entity, while love is an action, a sentiment, a commitment, a devotion, an affection, et al. Hence, God is love is not applicable in the role you originally gave to it.

    The definite article (The) in Greek identifies The Noun being qualiified in 1 John 4:7 The God is Love & John 1:1c God was being The Word

    English and Greek use of the definite article is different so readable English tends to drop out Greek definite identification. English has an indefinite article (a, an) while Greek does not. Lack of definite article for a noun (anarthrous) in Greek has three possibilities: qualitative (majority), indefinite, OR definite.



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Clearly Matthew 14:22-33 text shows Peter believed Jesus is יהוה Lord, the Son of God:

    @Bill_Coley July 19 In the Matthew text, Peter calls Jesus "Lord, " NOT "יהוה Lord," as well as "the Son of God." Yet again you import words into a text in a way that supports your view. As I have reported previously, I could post a lot more biblical support for my views were I willing to add words to texts.

    Prior to encounter with Jewish Rabbi Jesus, Jewish Peter daily recited The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21, Numbers 15:37-41) twice, which has 18 יהוה (Lord spoken instead of God's Holy Hebrew Name) so 18 * 365.25 => 6,574.25 times on average per solar year. Searching LXX Swete for <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> finds Jewish translation of יהוה as Κύριος (kurios, Lord) 6,076 times and θεός (theos, God) 247 times, consistent with Hebrew Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤י Lord) being spoken instead of יהוה during Jewish Scripture reading of Hebrew text (current Jewish synagogue practice dates back over 2,200 years). Ancient Jewish cultural perspective is "Lord" meaning יהוה (God's Holy Hebrew name) in thousands of Scripture verses, which were read every year in Synagogue services. Daily Jewish scripture recitations plus annual reading of Scripture has over 12,000 occurences of Lord OR God spoken for יהוה every year. Jewish prayers and feasts/fasts/festivals include more יהוה encounters. Jewish door posts have reminders of יהוה (modern Mezuzah are available with many artful decorations: scroll inside has seven יהוה).

    Curious if you know of any Biblical word(s) in the Hebrew Bible OR Greek Septuagint (LXX) that were often repeated, which support your interpretative view of New Testament Scripture texts (where Lord cannot mean יהוה). Logos & Verbum Bible Software have Concordance Tool that can show counts for Surface Text in a Bible: e.g. Lexham Hebrew Bible

    50,524: וְ w conjunction: and, together with, that is, or, then (can function like a Capitol letter to start a sentence)

    30,260: הַ ha definite article: the

    20,206: לְ 1 "l 1" preposition: to, towards; until; for; away, from; into; of, about (numbered lemma indicates homonym)

    15,551: בְּ b preposition: in, at, among, upon; with, away from, when

    14,925: הוּא hûʾ pronoun: he, it; this, that; this same; same

    10,976: אֵת 1 "ʾēt 1" preposition: direct object (numbered lemma indicates homonym)

    9,086: אֲנִי ʾănî pronoun: I

    7,782: אַתָּה ʾattâ pronoun: you (masculine singular)

    7,641: הֵם hēm pronoun: they

    7,555: מִן min preposition: away from, out of; from; since; after; because; without; of

    6,828: יהוה yhwh proper name: God's Holy Hebrew Name (Tetragrammaton)


    Some Jewish Rabbi's commented ~900 years ago about Leviticus 24:12-16 Blasphemy: (includes the Lord for יהוה in commentary text)

    Leviticus 24:12–16

    ABARBANEL’S QUESTIONS

    ♦ Since the Israelites have already been told “You shall not revile God” (Exod. 22:27), why was the man “placed in custody” (v. 12) and not simply put to death?

    ♦ Since the Lord is God, what is the difference between cursing God (v. 15) and blaspheming the Lord (v. 16)?


    Leviticus 24:12

    RASHI

    He was placed in custody. He was placed in custody by himself, and not together with the man who was caught gathering wood on the Sabbath day (Num. 15:32–36), though both incidents occurred around the same time. In that case, they knew that the man was to be put to death, but “it was not clear what should be done to him” (Num. 15:34)—they did not know which of the four methods of execution was to be applied. Here, they did not even know whether or not he was to be put to death, so they put him in custody until the decision of the Lord should be made clear to them.

    IBN EZRA

    In custody. More precisely, “in the guardhouse,” a specific place in the camp that was used for this purpose.

    ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

    Until the decision of the Lord should be made clear to them. Since “He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Exod. 21:17), it seemed logical that this man should be too. But they did not want to put anyone to death strictly on the basis of a logical deduction (Bekhor Shor). It seems to me that their doubt was whether he was an Israelite, and obligated not to blaspheme the Name, or an Egyptian, and under no such obligation. It was at this point that his mother Shelomith, the peacemaker, testified that his father was an Egyptian—to save his life (Abarbanel).


    Leviticus 24:14

    RASHI

    All who were within hearing. These were the witnesses. But adding the word “all” who were within hearing implies that the judges too (who heard from the witnesses) must participate. Lay their hands upon his head. They would say to him, “Your blood is upon your own head. We are not to be punished for your death, for you have brought it on yourself.” Let the whole community stone him. Since this is physically impossible, we understand that it must mean he is to be stoned in the presence of the whole community. So we learn that one is legally responsible for the actions of one’s representative.

    IBN EZRA

    Let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head. Since it is on the basis of their testimony that he is to be stoned. The whole community. Not “the entire community” but the “assembly,” the greatest on earth—that is, the notables of Israel, who represented them all.

    ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

    Let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head, and let the whole community stone him. Those who heard the blasphemy laid hands upon him (as one does on a sacrifice) to seek expiation, to defend God’s honor, and to throw him from a height as Jewish law prescribes. When the whole community sees that they have done this—knowing that if he was not indeed guilty of blasphemy the witnesses would be making themselves accomplices to a murder—they can stone him knowing that he is indeed guilty (Bekhor Shor). Since the witnesses have to repeat his sin of blasphemy in order to convict him, they lay their hands on him to convey their sin back to him, since he was responsible for causing them to say those words (Hizkuni). God told Moses, “It makes no difference whether he is an Israelite or an Egyptian. Once he is known to be a blasphemer, he must be stoned to death” (Abarbanel).


    Leviticus 24:15–16

    RASHBAM

    Anyone who blasphemes his God by invoking any of the words for God, without pronouncing the Ineffable Name, shall bear his guilt. But if he also pronounces the Ineffable Name (may His name be blessed!) and then curses it, he shall be put to death. That is the straightforward sense of these verses.


    Leviticus 24:15

    RASHI

    Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt. He is “cut off” by heaven if he was not specifically warned before he uttered the blasphemy, since in that case a human court has no jurisdiction.

    IBN EZRA

    Anyone who blasphemes his God. Some say this refers specifically to one who blasphemes in secret. But it is more correct to observe that the word elohim is a common noun, and need not refer to God, but to “godly ones” (as we indeed find in the case of angels who are referred to by this word, as are human judges). After all, who can know what is in the heart of someone who blasphemes in secret? So one who curses “elohim” merely “bears his guilt.” But the Tetragrammaton is a proper noun—the Ineffable Name—and can only refer to the Lord. So if he actually pronounces the Name when he blasphemes, he is to be put to death for doing so (see v. 16), as the Egyptian’s son was. Out of respect for God, the text itself did not write the Name explicitly in v. 11—but that is what he did.


    Leviticus 24:16

    RASHI

    If he also pronounces the name Lord. He is not culpable unless he specifically pronounces the Tetragrammaton. The rule does not apply to one who blasphemes using one of the other words for God. Note that in our verse the verb does mean “blaspheme” (see OJPS), not merely “pronounce,” as it does in v. 11. “How can I damn whom God has not damned” (Num. 23:8) is another example with that meaning.

    IBN EZRA

    Stranger or citizen. It makes no difference which—if he has thus pronounced the Name, he shall be put to death.

    ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

    Stranger or citizen. Since the blasphemer was a “stranger” (that is, a convert), the stranger is mentioned first in this connection (Hizkuni). The blasphemer was not being punished because he was a stranger; punishment would also have applied to a citizen (Sforno).

     Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition., The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 198–199.

    Many modern words to express anger OR for laughter => blaspheme יהוה Lord God (our spiritual adversary wants every human to spiritually die).



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 Saul was persecuting humans who believe Jesus is יהוה Lord God, but not his Jewish "יהוה Lord God" so Saul wanted to know Who is the Bright Holy Light from Heaven (definitely not human and not normal nature), so Saul meant יהוה Lord God in his question to the one who had asked Saul: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

    @Bill_Coley July 19 In the text, Saul asks "Who are you, lord?" of the one who had asked him, "Why are you persecuting me?" If Saul meant "יהוה Lord God," his question then was, "Who are you, יהוה Lord God?" Akin to your asking me, "What's your name, Bill?" or my asking, "I wonder who won the game that the Yankees won?" If Saul meant יהוה Lord God, then HE ALREADY KNEW who had asked him the question and wouldn't have needed to ask.

    Saul had been zealous for יהוה Lord God by persecuting humans who believe Jesus is יהוה Lord God => Saul knew Holy Bright Light voice was יהוה Lord God, BUT Saul did not know the Name of the voice who asked Saul: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

    But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the יהוה Lord, went to the high priest and asked for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, both men and women, he could bring them tied up to Jerusalem.

    Now as he proceeded, it happened that when he approached Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

    So he said, “Who are you, יהוה Lord?”

    And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting! But get up and enter into the city, and it will be told to you what you must do.”

    (Now the men who were traveling together with him stood speechless, because they heard the voice but saw no one.) So Saul got up from the ground, but although his eyes were open he could see nothing. And leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was unable to see for three days, and he did not eat or drink. (Acts 9:1-9 LEB)

    Considering intensity of human faith belief ideas with stubbornness against change, expect soul shaking/shattering shock inside Saul upon hearing Jesus speak being incredibly intense. Physical blindness allowed Saul time to process substantial faith belief change transformation, repent from sins (included murder & anger), and ask יהוה Lord God for forgiveness. Saul/Paul has a valid claim for being the foremost sinner => I give thanks to the one who strengthens me, Christ Jesus our יהוה Lord, because he considered me faithful, placing me into ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, but I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our יהוה Lord abounded with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and worthy of all acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But because of this I was shown mercy, in order that in me foremost, Christ Jesus might demonstrate his total patience, for an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life. Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, to the only יהוה God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:12-17 LEB)



    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 5 Disagreement expressions simply lack Jewish legal basis for execution from what "the text says" in the first five books of the Bible.

    @Bill_Coley July 7 You assume they had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution demands. I disagree.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 11 No assumption. Results from studying Scripture text & Jewish culture about blasphemy. FWIW: a number of Jewish religious laws & procedures were ignored along the way for Jewish religious execution of Jesus for blasphemy: e.g. Sanhedrin meeting at night (in darkness for a dark verdict).

    @Bill_Coley July 13 Please clarify: Do you believe the Jewish leaders had a legitimate "legal basis" for their execution of Jesus demands?

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 15 Jewish religious lawyers & judges replied about Blasphemy verdict (Jewish legal judgment per Leviticus 24.10-16 in their view) to Pilate => The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (John 19:7 LEB)

    @Bill_Coley July 16 I asked whether YOU believed the Jewish religious leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their execution of Jesus demands. This response of yours does not answer that question. I ask it again.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 17 My Thanks to Holy God includes God's Truth being consistent. To me, John 19:7 declares certainty by the Jewish religious lawyers & judges (scribes and Pharisees) about the legitimacy of their Blasphemy verdict (being right in their eyes). In Matthew 23:1-13, Jesus declared the scribes and the Pharisees (Jewish religious lawyers & judges) had authority (sitting on the seat of Moses) for Jewish religious verdicts, whose words were to be observed while to not do as they do (hypocrites). Jewish religious leaders & judges were experts at appearing righteous (Matthew 23:25-26, Luke 11:37-41), able to render legimate Jewish verdicts about righteous appearance. God's Words in Matthew 23:25-26 & Luke 11:37-41 showed יהוה Lord God knew inside motives of Jewish religious lawyers & judges were full of greed, self-indulgence, and wickedness => hypocrites, who commited greater sin in delivering Jewish Jesus to Roman governor Pontius Pilate (John 19:11). Thus, my belief about the Jewish religious leaders is they believed their Blasphemy verdict was legitimate (right in their eyes), but really they had sinned greatly against יהוה Lord God.

    @Bill_Coley July 18 I asked whether you believed the religious leaders who accused Jesus of blasphemy had what in a previous post you called a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for their charges.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 20 Found first use of phrase legitimate "legal basis" by @Bill_Coley on July 7 with my three responses to your "legitimate 'legal basis'" replies.

    @Bill_Coley July 19 From this paragraph of yours I take that you believe 1) the leaders believed they were correct; 2) Jesus believed the leaders had authority to render verdicts whose judgments were to be observed, even if the motives behind those judgments could be highly questionable, perhaps sinful; and 3) the leaders sinned by delivering Jesus to Pilate. What I don't know as a result of that paragraph is your answer to my question: Do you believe the leaders had a "legitimate 'legal basis'" for accusing Jesus of blasphemy? I'm not asking about their reputations, motivations, or degrees of spiritual decay - those all can help us understand the leaders, but don't necessarily address the specific blasphemy charge against Jesus - so I ask my question again.

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus July 20 ... Agree with your summary of my paragraph plus sin against יהוה Lord God also included Jewish religious leaders NOT believing truthful deity expressions by Jesus, which were interpreted as cursing God => Blasphemy.

    @Bill_Coley July 20 When you revisit the question I asked about the "legal basis," you'll note that the word "legitimate" was inside the double quotation marks along with the words "legal basis," but OUTSIDE the single quotation marks that contained those two words. By doing so, I meant to quote my previous post, but to set apart YOUR WORDS - "legal basis" - contained in that post from my words. So in the phrase, "legitimate 'legal basis'," "legitimate" was my word and "legal basis" were your words.

    @Bill_Coley July 20 So I'm asking you essentially two questions:

    @Bill_Coley July 20 * Do you believe the religious leaders had a legal basis for their blasphemy charge against Jesus?

    @Bill_Coley July 20 * If so, do you believe that legal basis was legitimate?

    @Bill_Coley July 20 What does "legitimate" mean? Defensible. Justified. Appropriate.

    Revisiting our replies shows your two questions have already been answered in my earlier replies. Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, and Sanhedrin members could defend their Jewish Blasphemy verdict as they interpreted truthful Jewish deity expressions by Jewish Rabbi Jesus as cursing יהוה so believed Jesus should be put to death for Blasphemy. Appropriate to fulfill prophecies: John 11:45-57, Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Psalm 22:1-31

    Humanly not know if any of the Jewish religious leaders who believed Blasphemy verdict was appropriate ever repented of sins and (re)turned to Loving יהוה Lord God and believing Jesus is יהוה Lord God.




    FYI: time to post my longish comments (draft length warning), hoping to reply later about rest of @Bill_Coley July 20 post comments.

    Keep Smiling 😊

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0