Jesus is God? (Messiah, HaShem, crucifixion, Kingdom, Jehovah)

[Muffled]

[quote=Dirty Penguin;1187217][quote=Muffled;1186722]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Just because he adheres to the "law" doesn't mean he doesn't worship his god.

And I guess it all depends on your interpretation of "fulfillment"....I take it to mean he was the seal or completion of the law. No more laws were to come.

American Heritage Dictionary

Fulfill
To bring to an end: to complete

Additionally when you quoted Yeshua you should have completed the quote. Here's the rest of it;

Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Nowhere does he say the laws should not be observed but on the contrary he warns against not obeying the laws and teaching other to do so. "No law will disappear until it is finished". He says the law has not achieved its purpose so it is to remain in effect.

Revelation 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.[/quote]



His "meager concept"

The pot calling the kettle black......




Like I said.. it's all in how you interpret the word. As it shows, Yeshua told them to make sure they follow the laws, even the smallest ones and if they taught other not to follow the law then they would not be blessed. His quote doesn't stop at 5:17 like we see most christians quoting. You highlighted (execute) and obviouly we can't use that one because he said he came not to do that. Now I can give you (satisfy) but that in no way means the laws don't have to be followed. If that were the case then he wouldn't have uttered verses 18 and 19.




I agree and that's why they all, even the smallest should be observed. Why?...because he said to follow them. Do you not agree?

No, I do not agree. All that I need to follow is Jesus who is the beginning and the end of the law for me. Laws wren't made to be worshipped, they were made for our benefit. If Jesus decides that I benefit by not having to observe a law then I do not need to observe it.

For instance: How many sabbaths do you observe? The Bible only requires a sabbath from labor but Jesus has me observe other sabbaths as well. He had me take a sabbath from recreational inactivity (Tv watching, reading books, playing games on the computer). It was like going on a fast which is a sabbath from eating. So in my opinion you should give it a rest, lol.

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Hear, O Israel, the lord thy God is ONE. . . . .

Regards,
Scott

Citing the Shema isn’t going to solve our problem because of the Hebrew language, one have a meaning that it can express more than one. eg. Ge 2:24, Gen 3:22
Deu 6:4 Hear,8085 O Israel:3478 The LORD3068 our God430 is one259 LORD:3068
H259
אחד
'echa^d
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by emiliano

Citing the Shema isn’t going to solve our problem because of the Hebrew language, one have a meaning that it can express more than one. eg. Ge 2:24, Gen 3:22
Deu 6:4 Hear,8085 O Israel:3478 The LORD3068 our God430 is one259 LORD:3068
H259
אחד
'echa^d
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

Echad only means one.

It is the context, and the context alone that determines what that 1 item is, whether it's one apple or one bunch of apples.... but the number itself is no more than 1.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one.

There is nothing in this statement to suggest that God is anything more than one.

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by Poisonshady313

Echad only means one.

It is the context, and the context alone that determines what that 1 item is, whether it's one apple or one bunch of apples.... but the number itself is no more than 1.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one.

There is nothing in this statement to suggest that God is anything more than one.

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

[nawab]

You should Believe Elohim as one God because if there are more than one kings than they will fight similarliy if there are more than one God they will fight agaisnt each other I want to do this, and i want to do that. Just like in Hinduism Brahma and Vishnu are always fighting.

Cant you see how peaceful our universe is, if there were more Gods than they would often be in dispute.

However, In Judaism, the concept of God is accurate, because logically that would be a description of God almighty. However if you read the Christians scriptures when Jesus compares himself with God he calls himself a worm. He preaches Why thou callest me good, He refuses that you call him good why would he tell you to call him God, God is supposed to be Good and he denys to be called Good this is hipocrasy.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by emiliano

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

It's called "The Imperial We." Queen Victoria says "We are not amused." Since she is a sovereign, "she" is "we".

It's a quirk of language in many languages, including Engflish and Hwbrew.

Same thing as referrinbg to God as "He". God does not require testicles to bne called "He".

Regards,
Scott

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by emiliano

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

Whenever Elohim is used to refer to God, it is always surrounded by singular verbs, adjectives, etc.


As for Israel... read all of Isaiah. Learn and understand that frequently the nation of Israel is referred to as a single person.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Muffled

No, I do not agree. All that I need to follow is Jesus who is the beginning and the end of the law for me.

Originally Posted by Muffled

Laws wren't made to be worshipped

No where did I say you should nor am I suggesting that they should. It is a fact that he said to follow (ALL) the laws, even the smallest ones. Christians are selective in which laws of old they follow. These are usually limited in what is known as the (10 commandments).

Originally Posted by Muffled

they were made for our benefit. If Jesus decides that I benefit by not having to observe a law then I do not need to observe it.

But that's just it. He explicitly said to follow all of them. Where did he decide that you didn't have to follow all of them?

Matthew 5:18-19
18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Originally Posted by Muffled

So in my opinion you should give it a rest, lol.

He said it not me. But you're right....it's really not important to this discussion.....

[Poisonshady313]

Isaiah 53:8 From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall