Did Jesus say he was God???

[BornAgain]

Scripture says that God never dies. Yet Jesus DID die!
Habakkuk 1:12
12 Lord, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die.
John 19:33
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

Jn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Jn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

None of those say that Jesus was God... If anything they specifically say Jesus was a servant of God. And the seed of David verse only supports the theory that it was Joseph who conceived Jesus, since Joseph was the descendant of the line of David; not Mary. Hurts your claim that Jesus was even the son of God. Just saying...

 

[look3467]

But that's not what the debate is about. The issue is whether or not Jesus ever SAID he was God, not whether or not he has any heavenly ties.

Heavenly connection means the Spirit of God was in Him as God.
What is not understood here in this debate is the connection.

Under normal circumstances...that is, being born from the seed of Adam, any soul could not merit any righteous behavior to warrant salvation from the curse of death. (Spiritual death being the curse for our becoming as gods. Lower case g)

Mankind became lost, no fault of its own, but technically, Gods. So God Himself has to redeem His own creation.

And.....so He does in Jesus.

It would have to take a super natural birth, meaning a reenactment of the first Adam as a second Adam, this time with the full authority of the God Head bodily in Jesus.
In Jesus, the second type of Adam, the conditions are met to comply fully, to the letter of the law, merit warranted to achieve salvation, not for Himself, but for all of mankind.
Instead of all mankind being lost, only Jesus' soul was lost. (One for all)

God knew this from the get go, evidenced by taking the tree of life away from the first Adam.
Again, Jesus' soul, though lost for mankind, His soul would not be left in hell/prison, as all who ever lived and died were.
Evidenced by the following verse:
Psa_16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act_2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Salvation......is now a gift....not merited by our own works, but by Gods work in Jesus.

There you have it......believe anything you want. That is your option to exercise freely, and still be covered, by Gods free gift of your salvation.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard... Well, it's up there, at least. There's plenty of opposition to the assertion that the Holocaust was justified. Does that mean it was?

Justified? Mankind can justify any action it chooses and call it right, be it right or wrong.
That is the gift of this existence as having intelligence as well as a curse.

As gods!

I see your shield and your note: "I Self Lord And Master" is not of your own making, but of Him that granted you that gift to be your own lord and master.

Precisely, for that reason which you espouse, is why mankind became lost.
Separate entities from God, as gods, is what brought death.
Evidenced:
Gen_3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Taking the tree of life away (symbolically) meant death to the soul spiritually and in need of Gods redemption.

Jesus had to be/was/is Gods full authority in Spirit, otherwise, Gods redemption for mankind could no man, save God Himself, be accomplished.
There is absolutely no other alternative period.

So its a take it or leave it choice.

Blessings, AJ

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Justified? Mankind can justify any action it chooses and call it right, be it right or wrong.

Which is exactly what you're doing... Why should I believe you any more than any other zealous crackpot?

Precisely, for that reason which you espouse, is why mankind became lost.
Separate entities from God, as gods, is what brought death.

This is a matter of opinion, not fact... In order for me to be a separate entity from God, there has to be a god. Good luck proving that one.

Jesus had to be/was/is Gods full authority in Spirit, otherwise, Gods redemption for mankind could no man, save God Himself, be accomplished.

There is absolutely no other alternative period.

So its a take it or leave it choice.

Blessings, AJ

Or the whole story's bull *** and I don't have to believe or be "saved" from anything. Bam. An alternative.

 

[look3467]

None of those say that Jesus was God... If anything they specifically say Jesus was a servant of God. And the seed of David verse only supports the theory that it was Joseph who conceived Jesus, since Joseph was the descendant of the line of David; not Mary. Hurts your claim that Jesus was even the son of God. Just saying...

Question for you, if Mary was pregnant with Jesus prior to their having consummated their marriage, leave Joseph out of the human spirit loop.

What I mean by that is, if it were by Joseph, then Jesus would be of the spirit of Adam, as all of us are. But because Mary was impregnated by the Spirit of God, makes Jesus not of the seed of Joseph, but of God as a Son. Hence, Mary's virgin birth.
The lineage then rests with Mary's side. What would they (Jews) claim Jesus was?
A _astard child? A false prophet? Claiming that before Abraham, He was?

Joh_8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

That's just like saying, He was making Himself equal to God? How preposterous that was to the Jews? As in:

Joh_5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Blessings, AJ

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Question for you, if Mary was pregnant with Jesus prior to their having consummated their marriage, leave Joseph out of the human spirit loop.

What I mean by that is, if it were by Joseph, then Jesus would be of the spirit of Adam, as all of us are. But because Mary was impregnated by the Spirit of God, makes Jesus not of the seed of Joseph, but of God as a Son. Hence, Mary's virgin birth.

Then Jesus couldn't possibly have been descended from the line of David, and the Bible contradicts itself... Also, two of the Gospels (Mark and John) don't even mention the virgin birth. You'd think that would be an important enough detail that it would be in all of the Gospels.

 

[look3467]

Which is exactly what you're doing... Why should I believe you any more than any other zealous crackpot?>>>I.S.L.A.M617

Like I said, believe or not, its your choice. I can but only present a view that supports what I have come to understand as Gods works. Based on biblical prophecy, and the general theme that runs in harmony with all the scriptures in the bible.

This is a matter of opinion, not fact... In order for me to be a separate entity from God, there has to be a god. Good luck proving that one.

Again, the choice to believe in God is optional.

Or the whole story's bull *** and I don't have to believe or be "saved" from anything. Bam. An alternative.

Be it as it may!

Blessings, AJ

 

[BornAgain]

Revelation 3:14 (New International Version) [False Scripture Alert]
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.
Revelation 3:14 (King James Version)
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Ruler/Arche and Beginning/Arche both has the same Greek meaning.

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

THIS IS A MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1-2

I forgot to mention how incorrect R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is when he states that “Seven things were created before the world was created. They are: The Torah, Gehinnom, the Garden of Eden, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance, and the Name of the Messiah” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter III, p. 10-11). If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness. R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation. Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1). As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

But according to you,

Jesus was God's first creation, meaning that God existed first.

Because you read in,
Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
[/QUOTE]
You saw the word “firstborn” and you thought that was the literal meaning of it.
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Was Israel the 2nd creation of God after Christ? Then, it should say, “SECONDBORN” instead and not “FIRSTBORN” just to avoid confusion.

You probably did not read the following verses WHEN YOU MISTAKENLY ASSUMED IN V15 THE WORD “FIRSTBORN” AS WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.

THIS IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF “CONTRADICTORY EXTRAPOLATION” ON YOUR PART. MAKING AN ANALOGICAL EXTRAPOLATION WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION AT ALL WILL MEAN NOTHING BUT DEDUCTIVE DISASTER.

YOU CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW YOUR PREMISES AT ALL.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

According to the Midrash Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 “There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.”

IOW, BEFORE THE CREATION OR GENESIS 1:1-2 THERE WAS NO CREATION and ACCORDING TO Col 1:16 “For by him were all things created” Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ WAS IN EXISTENCE ALREADY before the creation or before Genesis 1:1-2, AND SINCE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY CREATION BEFORE GENESIS 1:1-2, ONE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE, BASE ON THESE PREMISES AND NOT ON ANALOGICAL EXTRAPOLATIONS, THAT THE Lord Jesus Christ WAS NOT A CREATED BEING OR CREATION OF God.

Now, let’s find out when the “TIME STARTED“. WAS IT BEFORE THE “BEGINNING” OR AFTER THE “BEGINNING”?

REMEMBER THE WORD “GOD” IS GENESIS 1:1 IS PLURAL. THIS MAYBE THE REASON WHY SHERMANA SAID SOMETHING LIKE THIS,

And also for the record, the Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself.
There's no reason to assume they were created on days 2-5 or even 1.
It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.

THIS THEORY IS WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION AT ALL. BASELESS DELUSIONAL ANGELS’ THEORIES UPON THEORIES.

MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1

The Holy One, blessed be He, has always existed and continues to exist eternally outside of the perimeters of time, for He Himself created time ex nihilo. Wise Rambam identifies time with motion, particularly motion of the spheres (cf. Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter XXX, p. 212). So let us not be ignorant; let us see that time began when motion began. This is in agreement with the pagans as well, for the Philosopher himself believed that time itself could not be imagined without a beginning (cf. Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter XXX, p. 212). The Holy One, blessed be He, decided from the beginning that His creation would be bound by the perimeters of time, for “there is […] a time for every affair under the heavens” (Ecclesiastes 3.1).

“TIME COULD NOT BE IMAGINED WITHOUT A BEGINNING”

BEFORE THE “BEGINNING” OR “THE TIME STARTED” OR “THE CREATION” Christ WAS THERE ALREADY WITH God.

Jn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

THIS CONCLUSION IS BASE ON PREMISES AND NOT ON DELUSIONAL ANALOGICAL EXTRAPOLATION.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

YOU WOULD ARGUE THAT “THE WORD” HERE IS “A GOD”, BUT ACCORDING TO THESE PREMISES, YOUR CONCLUSION PROVES OTHERWISE OR DIFFERENTLY, NO SUBSTANCE AT ALL.

 

[captainbryce]

Heavenly connection means the Spirit of God was in Him as God.

Well that's what it means to you because that's how you just defined the term. I could just as easily say that angels have a heavenly connection (since they reside in heaven), or that Christians have a heavenly connection when we have the Holy Spirit. The term "heavenly connection" is so broad and vague, it can literally mean anything the user wants it to mean. My point is, I don't deny that Jesus had a heavenly connection. Scripture says he was the Son of God, that he ascended to heaven, and that he sits on God's right hand. There is no doubt that he has a heavenly connection according to the bible. But again, the issue is whether or not he ever actually calls himself God. That is what the debate is about!

Under normal circumstances...that is, being born from the seed of Adam, any soul could not merit any righteous behavior to warrant salvation from the curse of death. (Spiritual death being the curse for our becoming as gods. Lower case g)

Mankind became lost, no fault of its own, but technically, Gods. So God Himself has to redeem His own creation.

And.....so He does in Jesus.

It would have to take a super natural birth, meaning a reenactment of the first Adam as a second Adam, this time with the full authority of the God Head bodily in Jesus.
In Jesus, the second type of Adam, the conditions are met to comply fully, to the letter of the law, merit warranted to achieve salvation, not for Himself, but for all of mankind.
Instead of all mankind being lost, only Jesus' soul was lost. (One for all)

God knew this from the get go, evidenced by taking the tree of life away from the first Adam.
Again, Jesus' soul, though lost for mankind, His soul would not be left in hell/prison, as all who ever lived and died were.
Evidenced by the following verse:
Psa_16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act_2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Salvation......is now a gift....not merited by our own works, but by Gods work in Jesus.

There you have it......believe anything you want. That is your option to exercise freely, and still be covered, by Gods free gift of your salvation.

Blessings, AJ

I'm not denying any of what you just said. I actually agree with most of it (all except the part about Jesus going to hell). But again, I don't think that is what this particular debate is about.

 

[captainbryce]

Jn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

And, but, so, therefore? Two of the three passages you quoted here specifically say that Jesus was the SON of God (not God himself) and beyond that, they both indicate the mortal nature of Jesus. The fact that he was resurrected is irrelevant. We will ALL be resurrected according to scripture, but that doesn't prove that we are all God. Moreover, none of these passages address Habakkuk 1:12 (God NEVER dies). By highlighting the fact that Jesus DID, it actually reinforces my position that Jesus was not God.

 

[cataway]

Question for you, if Mary was pregnant with Jesus prior to their having consummated their marriage, leave Joseph out of the human spirit loop.

What I mean by that is, if it were by Joseph, then Jesus would be of the spirit of Adam, as all of us are. But because Mary was impregnated by the Spirit of God, makes Jesus not of the seed of Joseph, but of God as a Son. Hence, Mary's virgin birth.
The lineage then rests with Mary's side. What would they (Jews) claim Jesus was?
A _astard child? A false prophet? Claiming that before Abraham, He was?

Joh_8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

That's just like saying, He was making Himself equal to God? How preposterous that was to the Jews? As in:

Joh_5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Blessings, AJ

John 5:18, RS: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”
It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS.​

 

[captainbryce]

Ruler/Arche and Beginning/Arche both has the same Greek meaning.

That is incorrect. In biblical Hebrew "arche" always refers to "beginning". This is the term used in Revelation 3:14.

Revelation 3:14
14 “Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen—the faithful and true witness, the beginning [arche] of God’s new creation:

Greek Concordance: ???? (arch?) -- 12 Occurrences

The term "ruler" or chief would be translated from a different but similar term "archon". This is the term used in Revelation 1:5

Revelation 1:5
...and from Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the ruler [archon] of all the kings of the world.

Greek Concordance: ????? (arch?n) -- 8 Occurrences

That is only one example of why the NIV is a notoriously poorly translated bible and often misleading.

THIS IS A MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1-2

Sorry, NOT INTERESTED! I'm interested in YOUR interpretation of scripture, and whether or not YOU can make an argument that reconciles your belief in trinity with the biblical texts that go against it. Someone else's interpretation is not relevant to me.

the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

There doesn't have to be. There only has to be a reference of Jesus existing before the heavens and Earth, and there is! The reason he existed before the heavens and the Earth is because God created him FIRST, and then through him created the heavens and the Earth.

But according to you,

Because you read in,
Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

You saw the word “firstborn” and you thought that was the literal meaning of it.
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Was Israel the 2nd creation of God after Christ? Then, it should say, “SECONDBORN” instead and not “FIRSTBORN” just to avoid confusion.

You're ignoring the context of both passages. For one thing, the term "firstborn" in Exodus 4:22 is translated from the Hebrew word "ḇə·ḵō·rî", of which there is only ONE usage in the entire bible. In Exodus 4:22, God is using the term "firstborn son" (ḇə·ḵō·rî bə·nî) as a metaphor, for "his people" as opposed to the people who worship false Gods. It is not literal because "Israel" is a nation, not an actual "son".

But in Colossians 1:15, the term firstborn is translated from the Greek "prōtotokos" stands alone and is in reference to ALL CREATION. Contrast that with how the term is used in Revelation 1:5.

Revelation 1:5
...and from Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead [prōtotokos], and the ruler of all the kings of the world. All glory to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us.

Christ was the first to be created, and he was the first to be resurrected. The same word is used (prōtotokos), and it is used in the same context to refer to something that happened to Christ FIRST.

You probably did not read the following verses WHEN YOU MISTAKENLY ASSUMED IN V15 THE WORD “FIRSTBORN” AS WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.

A) I DID read all of the associated verses
B) I was NOT mistaken, YOU WERE (as I just pointed out).

YOU CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW YOUR PREMISES AT ALL.

Oh, but it does my friend. It is YOUR conclusion that does not follow because it is inconsistent with the Greek and Hebrew terminology, usage and context. :yes:

According to the Midrash Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 “There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.”

And yet (despite the fact that Midrash's interpretation in completely irrelevant to this discussion) his interpretation is WRONG according to Colossians 1:15, where it clearly says (in the context of creation) that Jesus was "firstborn". In addition to being the plain reading of the text, it is reinforced by looking at the context of the term prōtotokos in that sentence, and comparing it with the only other usage of the term in the NT!

IOW, BEFORE THE CREATION OR GENESIS 1:1-2 THERE WAS NO CREATION and ACCORDING TO Col 1:16 “For by him were all things created” Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ WAS IN EXISTENCE ALREADY before the creation or before Genesis 1:1-2, AND SINCE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY CREATION BEFORE GENESIS 1:1-2, ONE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE, BASE ON THESE PREMISES AND NOT ON ANALOGICAL EXTRAPOLATIONS, THAT THE Lord Jesus Christ WAS NOT A CREATED BEING OR CREATION OF God.

That is a ridiculous interpretation by ANY STANDARD. "All things" would obviously not include the person (or tool) that creates them. If you build a house with a hammer, then you could say that the whole house was built by this hammer. But that doesn't necessarily imply that you ALWAYS had a hammer. It just means that you had to have the hammer FIRST before you could build anything else!

Now, let’s find out when the “TIME STARTED“. WAS IT BEFORE THE “BEGINNING” OR AFTER THE “BEGINNING”?

It's actually IRRELEVANT, because "time" is a concept that only applies to beings who exist in this linear, temporal universe. Time is relative even inside our universe! This is actually consistent with the laws of physics as we know them and the Big Bang theory as well. Time is a dimension of space that didn't exist before any of the other dimensions existed. God actually created time (in the beginning) when he created the universe. Outside of our universe, time has no meaning. God exists outside of our universe (and therefore also outside of time), so time as we know it began when the universe began. That doesn't mean that God didn't exist BEFORE the beginning of time. He certainly did (otherwise nothing could be created). There could have been MANY "beginnings" of many other universes before the beginning of our own universe, and there may yet be many more after the end of our time. The truth is we just don't know because that knowledge has not been given to us, nor is it relevant to our own salvation! As linear, temporal beings, we don't have the capacity to understand existence beyond time as God does. Existing outside of time is part of what makes God "all-knowing". All we know for sure (through God's word) is that God existed before time existed, that Jesus was his firstborn of all creation, that time is part of the creation, and that all things were created through Jesus. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus (in essence, in spirit, or as a concept, but not yet as a physical being) and through him created everything else in the universe (matter, energy, space and time).

Jude 1:25
All glory to him who alone is God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. All glory, majesty, power, and authority are his before all time, and in the present, and beyond all time! Amen.

 

[look3467]

Then Jesus couldn't possibly have been descended from the line of David, and the Bible contradicts itself... Also, two of the Gospels (Mark and John) don't even mention the virgin birth. You'd think that would be an important enough detail that it would be in all of the Gospels.

Mary was also of the descendants of David. But because the male side of the linage is recognized, it is noted as such.
Jesus legal father then was Joseph, but Jesus' real Father was God.

Jamison, Fausset and Brown Commentary.
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus — From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned.
And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. (Reasoning?)
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Matthew 1:16
The husband of Mary - Jesus was generally believed to be the son of Joseph. It was needful for all who believed this, to know, that Joseph was sprung from David. Otherwise they would not allow Jesus to be the Christ. Jesus, who is called Christ. (Answer to reason)
Matthew Hennery’s Commentary on the whole Bible
10. The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (Mat_1:16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David; yet his interest in that dignity is derived by Joseph, to whom really according to the flesh he had no relation, to show that the kingdom of the Messiah is not founded in a natural descent from David.
The point in all of this is that Fatherhood had to be established as not of man, but of God.
Confirmation: 2Pe_1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Well that's what it means to you because that's how you just defined the term. I could just as easily say that angels have a heavenly connection (since they reside in heaven), or that Christians have a heavenly connection when we have the Holy Spirit. The term "heavenly connection" is so broad and vague, it can literally mean anything the user wants it to mean.

captainbyce, by what you call yourself "Christian" denotes you have a heavenly connection.

Meaning, that Christ, being resurrected, seated at the right hand of God or as God Himself, for there is none other but God, has a heavenly connection in you as you being buried and resurrected to new life with Him.
There is no other possibility for that to happen except it be God Himself performing the work.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

John 5:18, RS: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”​

​

You're absolutely correct! It was by design that it should be so. As the son of man, Jesus could not glory because He had to be in absolute submission to the will of the Father in order to comply and redeem the whole of humanity.....which was lost.

But after words: The Glory of God is realized in Jesus.
Psa_2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Rev_21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

captainbryce
I'm not denying any of what you just said. I actually agree with most of it (all except the part about Jesus going to hell). But again, I don't think that is what this particular debate is about.

How else would all those who lived and died from the beginning of humanity be rescued from the prison that held them captive without them being visited by Jesus?

Isa_24:22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Hos_6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

The hope of all who lived and died without so much as knowing God or who Jesus was, are visited by Jesus after His death on the cross. Then after two days, the third day raises them ALL up to heaven.
For Jesus acquired the keys to the gates of hell and death and liberated the captive.

Blessings, AJ

 

[captainbryce]

captainbyce, by what you call yourself "Christian" denotes you have a heavenly connection.

That's the point that I was making. But having a heavenly connection doesn't imply that one is also God.

Meaning, that Christ, being resurrected, seated at the right hand of God or as God Himself, for there is none other but God, has a heavenly connection in you as you being buried and resurrected to new life with Him.
There is no other possibility for that to happen except it be God Himself performing the work.

Blessings, AJ

Be that as it may, this doesn't really address the question that the OP asked.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Mary was also of the descendants of David. But because the male side of the linage is recognized, it is noted as such.
Jesus legal father then was Joseph, but Jesus' real Father was God.

Jamison, Fausset and Brown Commentary.
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus — From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned.
And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. (Reasoning?)
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Matthew 1:16
The husband of Mary - Jesus was generally believed to be the son of Joseph. It was needful for all who believed this, to know, that Joseph was sprung from David. Otherwise they would not allow Jesus to be the Christ. Jesus, who is called Christ. (Answer to reason)
Matthew Hennery’s Commentary on the whole Bible
10. The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (Mat_1:16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David; yet his interest in that dignity is derived by Joseph, to whom really according to the flesh he had no relation, to show that the kingdom of the Messiah is not founded in a natural descent from David.
The point in all of this is that Fatherhood had to be established as not of man, but of God.
Confirmation: 2Pe_1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Blessings, AJ

So Mary and Joseph were committing incest, and Mary wasn't sinless...

 

[captainbryce]

How else would all those who lived and died from the beginning of humanity be rescued from the prison that held them captive without them being visited by Jesus?

Isa_24:22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Isaiah 24:22 isn't discussing "all those who lived and died from the beginning of humanity". It is discussing the fate of specific individuals that will suffer the destruction of the Earth.

Isaiah 24:21-22
21 In that day the Lord will punish the gods in the heavens and the proud rulers of the nations on earth.
22 They will be rounded up and put in prison. They will be shut up in prison and will finally be punished.

The events described here occur well after the period of time in which Christ died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

Hos_6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

You're taking the scripture out of context (FAR OUT OF CONTEXT). The book of Hosea is largely allegorical, and it is addressed to the people of Israel (and ONLY the people of Israel) in a time when they largely abandoned him for false religion. It uses "marriage and infidelity" metaphors, to point out how the people were "unfaithful" to God. It has nothing to do with the men who came before or after, and certainly has nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus. So I'm not sure why you've made a connection with this book that tells a specific story that has nothing to do with Jesus, and the salvation of Christians.

The hope of all who lived and died without so much as knowing God or who Jesus was, are visited by Jesus after His death on the cross. Then after two days, the third day raises them ALL up to heaven.
For Jesus acquired the keys to the gates of hell and death and liberated the captive.

That's just not remotely what Hosea is talking about!