Jesus is God {title edited}

[Mercy_Shown]

Joseph being his legal father made Jesus legally a son of David (Mt 1:6) in the kingly line.
Was not Mary a descendant of David through Nathan (Lk 1:31), though not of the kingly line?

I don't know of any genealogy that ends with Mary.

 

[Eleanor]

Anyway; if true that Christ is David's biological descendant, and if true that David
was Adam's biological descendant, then it must be true that Christ, along with
David, is also Adam's biological descendant. So then if Adam was a created being,
then his biological descendants Christ and David are also created beings.

In God's reckoning, which is the divine truth of the matter, descendancy is according to the father only.
Jesus' Father not being a son of Adam means Jesus was also not a son of Adam, but a Son of God, his Father.

 

[Arial]

According to it, it affirms the Godhood of Jesus.
God was God divine, then Jesus was likewise God divine.

Good catch. Although they make their (Unitarians) point in their translation by decapitilizing "word" and give their own definition of word as used by John. They go into great detail on their web page of John 1. They do a good job of camouflage, and smoke screen, sleight of hand, to catch the unwary and untrained. Reading it is a good exercise in sharpening one's critical thinking! A person needs an excellent overview of the whole of scripture stored in the mind to recognize the crucial things that are left out of the equation in their interpretation of John's prologue. But they actually separate God from Himself, from His I AM'ness. It is full of logical fallacies of various sorts. One of the main ones is the appeal to their own authority. And in all the appearance they give of appealing to culture (often speaking for the operation of the minds of those long dead)and Greek usage of logos, they avoid why John was using logos, and the particular Greek form of logos, that he did. And how that usage directly pertained to a philosophy of the time. A search for the very first cause or source of wisdom and knowledge. John answered the question, as he introduced his gospel and introduced who Jesus is.

 

[Eleanor]

duplicate

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Christ's genealogy is relatively unimportant to the average Gentile, whereas very
important to Jews because only David's biological posterity qualifies to take his
throne and govern the people of Israel.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The New Testament verifies Christ is David's biological descendant.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

FAQ: Jesus is alleged to have been miraculously conceived (Luke 1:27-35) How
then did he in any way at all descend from David's loins, i.e. David's flesh?

REPLY: Mary wasn't Jesus' surrogate mother, viz: he wasn't implanted in her womb,
rather, he was conceived in her womb. Seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus'
biological father, then conception by means of his mom's flesh became the default
path to David's flesh (Gal 4:4). Although women are rare in biblical genealogies,
they still matter. For example Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. (Matt 1:5-6)

Anyway; if true that Christ is David's biological descendant, and if true that David
was Adam's biological descendant, then it must be true that Christ, along with
David, is also Adam's biological descendant. So then if Adam was a created being,
then his biological descendants Christ and David are also created beings.

It is right here at this very point where Jehovah's Witnesses have rank and file
Christians at a disadvantage due to the fact that quite a few pew warmers are
unable to discern the difference between the Word of John 1:1-3 and the flesh that
the Word became at John 1:14, to wit: the Word is an eternal spirit being whereas
the Word's flesh is a temporal material being whose human origin can be easily
traced to the very dust with which his ancestor Adam was constructed.
_

The miracle of this is that there is no difference. God became flesh in Christ. It is mortal you who declares that flesh cannot be immortal, but who are you or I to make such a decree? The JW's have no advantage, in fact, their theology tears down the cross and cuts it up to make a a ladder of works to climb to heaven, a ladder that will only crumble and fail.

The Word was Christ before He received His mortal body and it is still After His glorification and reception of His immortal body. Christ even spoke of His mortal Body before He had it. Ps40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Whole burnt offering and sin offering you did not require.

There was the Word with God from the beginning, then the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and then the Word was glorified and returned to His former Glory.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The geology of Luke

That one still ends with Joesph.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Yes he is the way, truth, and life but, as I showed using scripture, Jesus got all of his truths from God,

If you are a thing, you can't get that thing. If Christ is truth, He can't be given to himself.

his life from God, and ways from God. Didn't God give Jesus the truth, resurrect him to eternal life, and show Jesus the ways to walk? Jesus is saying if you want to be like him and get what he has then you need to follow him and believe his ways. It requires obedience to his truths and ways that he got from God.

Hebrews 5
7He in the days of His flesh, having offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One being able to save Him from death, and having been heard because of reverent submission, 8though being a Son, He learned obedience from the things He suffered, 9and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying Him, 10having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

How does any of this preclude Him from being God???? Christ had to become like us to learn what obedience meant to us. As God, obedience was never an issue. The Trinity was one. They had no hierarchy, they all knew and desired what each of the others knew and desired.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't know of any genealogy that ends with Mary.

That one still ends with Joesph.

It is thought by the scholars of the NIV that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father) while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus blood relative), that while tracing a genealogy through the mother's side was unusual, so was the virgin birth and that Luke's explanation here that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought," (Lk 3:23), brings to mind his explicit virgin (Mary) birth statement (Lk 1:34-35) and suggests the importance of the role of Mary in Jesus' genealogy.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

~


The information you seek is located back in post No.263
_

There is no genealogy for Mary in post 263

It is thought by the scholars of the NIV that Matthew follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father) while Luke emphasizes that of Mary (Jesus blood relative), that while tracing a genealogy through the mother's side was unusual, so was the virgin birth and that Luke's explanation here that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought," (Lk 3:23), brings to mind his explicit virgin (Mary) birth statement (Lk 1:34-35) and suggests the importance of the role of Mary in Jesus' genealogy.

That may be true but I don't see who Mary's grandparents were. Can we make a family tree out of this genealogy? Hmmmm...I wonder if there is one. Time to google.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

It plainly says it's referring to spiritual things. The rock that was broken and gushed water out was foreshadowing of Jesus being pierced on the cross and water coming out. If you will just look back in the old testament, there is no mention of Christ following the Israelites around in the desert.

Really. Look, it accompanied them. Bias is an invisible shield to the truth.

So I take it that was the best you could find. See, I told you it wouldn't be easy to prove the pre-existence of Jesus.

Really? Of course, it is impossible for those who will not receive it. It doesn't matter what Jesus said. It doesn't matter that He said, "now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

It doesn't matter that He said that He came from heaven. It doesn't matter that He said He came from the Father. It doesn't matter that He shares the same attributes as YHWH. You are not going to believe it. Even if Christ came to you and said, I am God, you would not believe it.

You will turn the pre-carnate Christ into a concept, a thought or any other way to rationalize away what God has plainly revealed.

God's power manifests in ways so subtle, yet imperceptible. You think God couldn't make us all disappear in the blink of an eye? He sure could. By His will alone is the universe sustained yet the universe is not itself God.

You have just tacitly declared Christ God. You said, "By His will alone is the universe sustained" And the Bible says, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

 

[Mr GLee]

Neither. Those are nouns whereas "eternal" is an adjective. Adjectives are not things.

Define the word eternal using your Bible. Is Limbo eternal?

 

[Runningman]

The REV is a Unitarian translation,

Yes it’s a great translation and I highly recommend you read it.

 

[Runningman]

If you are a thing, you can't get that thing. If Christ is truth, He can't be given to himself.

He is a man who was given the truth by God. He didn't even know what it was. He had to be taught it. Here it is again. Not sure why you're denying this after seeing it at least once.

John 8
28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me
40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

How does any of this preclude Him from being God????

It precludes him from being God in every way imaginable. It proves Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead nor was he capable of that. He submitted to God and was had his prayer heard because of his reverence. God didn't save Jesus from the cross, but He saved Jesus from being dead. Thus he was resurrected by God the Father.

See the other bits about how he had to be made perfect? God doesn't need to be made perfect does he?

I think the better question is what about Jesus' non-deity status makes you think he is God?

Christ had to become like us to learn what obedience meant to us.

God isn't like us. Jesus was tempted in every way a human is and yet God cannot be tempted. By that fact alone, Jesus isn't God. I think a better question is why do you think God can be tempted to sin?

Hebrews 4
15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.

James 1
13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone.

As God, obedience was never an issue. The Trinity was one. They had no hierarchy, they all knew and desired what each of the others knew and desired.

That's called a non sequitur. You're still talking about the trinity as though it exists. There is no mention of it described or explained in the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

Really. Look, it accompanied them. Bias is an invisible shield to the truth.

Eating spiritual food and drinking spiritual drinks from a rock isn't literal. That isn't about Christ literally accompanying them. That's a bias you have.

Really? Of course, it is impossible for those who will not receive it. It doesn't matter what Jesus said. It doesn't matter that He said, "now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

It does matter. The glory Jesus had before the world began hadn't happened yet, i.e., Jesus hadn't yet been crucified nor resurrected. The only example I'm aware of Jesus having done something before the world began is demonstrably not literal.

For example, Jesus wasn't slain two times; once before the world and then once in Israel. By process of elimination there is no other context in which Jesus existed except in God's foreknowledge.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

It doesn't matter that He said that He came from heaven. It doesn't matter that He said He came from the Father. It doesn't matter that He shares the same attributes as YHWH. You are not going to believe it.

It does matter, but in the context of John 6 where Jesus said he came down from heaven, he compared himself to the manna that fed the Israelites. I am pretty sure Jesus wasn't saying there was eternal, immortal, manna existing in heaven that came down to feed the Israelites. He must have been referring to existing in heaven in God's plans, (John 1:18 says Jesus was in the bosom of the Father, which could be understood as saying Jesus was in God's heart, figurately speaking) before manifesting as a human.

Even if Christ came to you and said, I am God, you would not believe it.

Christ didn't say that to anyone in the Bible and as a result no one else believed it. Otherwise, if Jesus would have simply said "I am God" then yes I would believe it. Why do you believe things Jesus didn't say?

You will turn the pre-carnate Christ into a concept, a thought or any other way to rationalize away what God has plainly revealed.

Please show an example of a person in your trinity known as the Son pre-existing.

You have just tacitly declared Christ God. You said, "By His will alone is the universe sustained" And the Bible says, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

That is not a declaration on my part that Jesus is God and that isn't what the verse you quoted means. If you will actually read the verse you quoted again, carefully, the Son isn't actually God hence he is the "radiance" of God's glory, the "representation" of his being. Grammatically, it isn't the Son who is the one upholding all things with his words. The context is in reference to God speaking through the Son in these "last days" in order to create the "ages" through him.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Define the word eternal using your Bible. Is Limbo eternal?

Limbo is not in the Bible. Eternal always means forever but in translating the Bible sometimes the adjective eternal connects to a causative noun but is referring to the effect of that noun. For instance, “eternal fire“ in some cases can refer to a fire that eventually does burn out but the results of that fire are eternal. Whatever was burnt up never comes back again. A grand example of this is the fire that was set in the gates of Jerusalem described as an eternal fire. That fire is not burning but neither are the gates of Jerusalem in existence and haven’t Been since they were burnt down in 70 A.D..

 

[Mr GLee]

Limbo is not in the Bible. Eternal always means forever but in translating the Bible sometimes the adjective eternal connects to a causative noun but is referring to the effect of that noun. For instance, “eternal fire“ in some cases can refer to a fire that eventually does burn out but the results of that fire are eternal. Whatever was burnt up never comes back again. A grand example of this is the fire that was set in the gates of Jerusalem described as an eternal fire. That fire is not burning but neither are the gates of Jerusalem in existence and haven’t Been since they were burnt down in 70 A.D..

I have a understanding how the word fire is used as a metaphor in parables . But I am referring to the letter of the law "death"(not Limbo)

The thou shalt not or you're dead never to rise to new life .That dead

Not the kind of dead when Peter went to town and started another of the oral traditions of dying mankind I heard it through the legion of fathers grapevine that John would not die but would go straight to Limbo or Purgatory for that kind of eternal sufferings, wondering with no salvation in sight

Jesus said if every time he rebuked the lies of the oral traditions of dying mankind and would write them down we would need a larger planet to hold the volumes of lies. . . larger than the Vatican library which is full of the tradition of dying mankind . . adding daily. I heard it through the fathers grape vine

John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I have a understanding how the word fire is used as a metaphor in parables . But I am referring to the letter of the law "death"(not Limbo)
Then why did you say "limdo?"

Then why did you use the word limbo? I am beginning to wonder about what makes you so "Gleeful."

The thou shalt not or you're dead never to rise to new life .That dead

Not the kind of dead when Peter went to town and started another of the oral traditions of dying mankind I heard it through the legion of fathers grapevine that John would not die but would go straight to Limbo or Purgatory for that kind of eternal sufferings, wondering with no salvation in sight

Are you OK?

Jesus said if every time he rebuked the lies of the oral traditions of dying mankind and would write them down we would need a larger planet to hold the volumes of lies. . . larger than the Vatican library which is full of the tradition of dying mankind . . adding daily. I heard it through the fathers grape vine

Ok, A little bird told me that was incorrect.

John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die;

Woah -- Time out. Jesus did not say that at all.

 

[Mr GLee]

Are you OK?

I am hoping so .let me ask my wife?

Ok, A little bird told me that was incorrect.

Same little one that whispered in Peter our brother in the Lords ear ? ."John will not die he will go straight to Limbo" pass that secret I heard it through the dying fathers grape vine around the table for a few thousands years.
There is no defence against the sword of the word the Holy Spirt of God ( sola scriptura) it as it is written defends those born again from above. .

 

[Fred]

Yes it’s a great translation and I highly recommend you read it.

Would you also highly recommend the commentary that was produced with it?

Genesis 1:1, REV Bible and Commentary

Genesis 1:1 REV and Commentary - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Bible verse

www.revisedenglishversion.com

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
Christ's genealogy per the gospel of Luke is sometimes appropriated to establish his
mother's connection to David, but I don't recommend that route because the
language, the grammar, and the punctuation of Luke 3:23 are much too
controversial.

It's also been suggested that both genealogies are Joseph's. However, in Matthew's
genealogy, Joseph descends from Solomon, whereas Luke's has him descending
from Solomon's brother Nathan.

Solomon and Nathan weren't distant kin. According to 1Chron 3:5 they were
siblings; both born of David & Bathsheba (a.k.a. Bathshua).

I have no clue how it's possible for two siblings to both be somebody's grandfather
when it's more likely that one of them would've been an uncle.

Along with that: there's a serious question about the listings of Shieltiel and
Zerubbabel. In Matthew's genealogy the two men are linked to David via Solomon.
In Luke's genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as Abihud
in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names so we
shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies. However, they are
listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot expect reasonable
people to accept as mere coincidence.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how best to
resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shieltiel and Zerubbabel in both
genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd have to consider the data
compromised; which is unfortunate because if we disregard Luke's genealogy, then
we pretty much have to disregard Matthew's too.

So the situation with Jesus' genealogies is such that I think it best to go about
establishing his family history from a different angle.
_