If JHVH = 'Lord', then Jesus is JHVH

[Yes]

No, I am not a SDA. I belong to no organized religion.

I do not draw the line at keeping the law anywhere. Not all the law applies to me, I am an older married woman. there are only so many of the laws that apply to me. Of course all of the I0 commandments do but some laws only pertain to men, some to young women, some to young men, some to land owners, many to priest, some only apply in the land of Israel, etc. So if every law never applied to every member of Israel then Shaul could not have said or meant that one must keep every law. I would need to see every verse that appears to say this and research them

Also, I wrote what I meant when I used the term Pro-Torah. There are many Messianic Jews/ Christian and followers of the Hebrew Roots movement who would also use the term pro-Torah but hold very traditional Christian beliefs concerning it.

There are many people who are looking to the Jews, the Jews who rejected Jesus. The nowadays Jews are Jews who listen to the teaching of Rabbis, Rabbis who speak against Jesus. We cannot mix the two. Jesus says a little yeast worked through the whole batch of dough.

The Jews who rejected Jesus will not accept that what once made the Jews clean no longer make them clean. Only faith in Jesus' blood makes us clean.

The Jews used to have many works just to make themselves clean. Observing the Sabbath kept the Jews clean. Being circumcised in the flesh kept the Jews clean. Adhering to a dietary law kept the Jews clean. Doing various external washings after a woman's period, and after a man ejaculated is what kept the Jews clean. If anyone even touched a person while they were unclean...or even sat where an unclean person sat...they had an external washing to do, and animal sacrifices to give. There were also other external washings for other things.

The Gentiles did not do these things, they were dead in their sins. They were enemies of God because they would not do what God commanded Moses to tell the people. The Gentiles would not clean themselves to worship God, as the Jews did.

The Jews had to make themselves clean just to worship God.
God gave the blood of animals to the Jews for atonement of their souls. They made themselves externally clean.
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.
Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Leviticus 15:32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

Faith in Jesus' blood makes us clean.
What a Great Rest we have in the Lord.

 

[Eileen]

Do I need your permission?

I did not give you permission I was acknowledging your right to respond.

 

[katiemygirl]

No, I am not a SDA. I belong to no organized religion.

I do not draw the line at keeping the law anywhere. Not all the law applies to me, I am an older married woman. there are only so many of the laws that apply to me. Of course all of the I0 commandments do but some laws only pertain to men, some to young women, some to young men, some to land owners, many to priest, some only apply in the land of Israel, etc. So if every law never applied to every member of Israel then Shaul could not have said or meant that one must keep every law. I would need to see every verse that appears to say this and research them

Also, I wrote what I meant when I used the term Pro-Torah. There are many Messianic Jews/ Christian and followers of the Hebrew Roots movement who would also use the term pro-Torah but hold very traditional Christian beliefs concerning it.

Romans 7:1-6
7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

 

[Eileen]

Romans 7:1-6
7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I suspect this verses4-6 are very different in the earliest manuscript but it will take some time for me to find out, I know Shaul's writings have been terribly corrupted over time. Right now I have no other answer.

 

[mainliner]

John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.

????????

why did Jesus say this ?

 

[Eileen]

John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.

????????

why did Jesus say this ?

Simple. HaShem is greater that Yeshua.

 

[mainliner]

Simple. HaShem is greater that Yeshua.

so yeshua is not god ?


please keep it simple , im just looking for answers , im not religious savvy

 

[Eileen]

so yeshua is not god ?


please keep it simple , im just looking for answers , im not religious savvy

Correct. But he is HaShem's chosen Messiah, our earthly King and our High Priest. That makes him pretty important to us.

 

[Yes]

so yeshua is not god ?


please keep it simple , im just looking for answers , im not religious savvy

Jesus is God come as a Son of Man. Jesus is God come in the flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus came and made himself nothing for us. There are limits to being a human. God did not pretend to come as a Man; He really came as a Man. Of course, God in heaven is greater than a Man in the flesh on earth.

 

[moorea944]

Jesus is God come as a Son of Man. Jesus is God come in the flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus came and made himself nothing for us. There are limits to being a human. God did not pretend to come as a Man; He really came as a Man. Of course, God in heaven is greater than a Man in the flesh on earth.

So God "changed" into a man, (even thought scripture tells us that God doesnt change), came down to earth, went from imortality to mortal, then imortality, but God is greater than man, yet he changed into a man, not sure what your really saying here, What are you saying again?

If God came down to earth, then who's in heaven? Who did Jesus pray to? Are you saying the God has a split personality? Really not sure where you get your ideas from.....

 

[Clear]

I took some days off for Christmas with family and the nature and context of the discussion has shifted some. I did want to reply to prior posts before merging into the present contextual traffic.


Hi Eileen :

1)Regarding whether Matt 28:19 was changed in subsequent greek text

Specifically regarding the final phrase of Matthew 28:19 where all three names of the Christian Godhead are used in the Phrase, I have mentioned that there are no known variants to this text in any of the (potentially thousands of) known greek manuscripts. That is, that there is no evidence that the earliest Greek was changed. You have taken the position that the “original of Matthew 28:19” was not that which was used in the very early church.

In post # 170 you offered us links to two sites as evidence of this change in text.

The first link was to an apologetic by the Pastor G. Reckart who was trying to prove that “the Catholic Church Fathers perverted the text”. The second link demonstrates 24 instances where Eusebius’ refers to teaching (…”go disciple”…) the nations without referring to baptism at all. However, in the 5 instances where he refers to baptism, he actually does quote Matt 28:19 as it stands in the greek text. Thus, his only reference to baptism confirms, rather than questions the greek phrase as it stands.

We are actually discussing separate nuances regarding Matthew 28:19.


The “unvarying” early Christian Greek Text
I have claimed that there are no known variants of the final phrase in Matthew 28:19. This phrase is truly the only known version that we have in any manuscript known. I must admit that this lack of variance does not prove that there could not have been a very original form of the text which differed, it merely demonstrates that once this early popular version of the greek text was established, the current form was the only version that survived and that we have no evidence of any changes to the text in any authentic greek manuscript that has ever been discovered. I also admit that the unvarying text does not prove what Jesus may have actually said (what was actually said and what was written about what was said are two separate issues)


Pastor Reckarts’ theory that “The Catholic Church” changed all of the various developing textual witnesses
I think Reckarts' claim that the Roman Congregation, at this early stage, had the influence and insight and power to change all of the thousands of early texts in western and eastern and other far flung areas is naive and silly and historically unviable.

The earliest Christian movement (and their texts) spread and developed more quickly in the east, (far from rome) than it did in the west. The earliest versions of New Testament text which developed in Ethiopia or Africa or "Constantinople" / Byzantia and other far reaches of the early Christian movement would not have been dictated in that sort of detail by an (as yet) small congregation in far off Rome. Even today, the eastern Ethiopian Biblical Canon contains several entire books that the western "Roman" canon no longer contains, and thus, even today, western canons are not the same as eastern canons.


Variance in belief and practice in the early Christian movement
You and I certainly seem to agree however, that the earliest Christian sacred texts, their doctrines, their beliefs and their practices did not remain stable, but instead, they varied over time and geographical space as the Christian movement spread and grew. Current orthodoxy is not the same as early Judeo-Christian orthodoxy, neither in text, nor beliefs nor in practices.

Thus, while I am confident in maintaining that there are no known variants of any of the thousands of known Greek texts regarding the last phrase of Matthew 28:19, this does not mean that the actual words Jesus used were those of the text and I very much agree with you that there were multiple variations of baptismal practice. This does not mean all varying texts, beliefs and practices were correct, merely that they varied.

Eileen, I very much like your posts and I like your intelligence that is able to both understand and make nuanced statements. I hope your journey is very good in this life.


Clear
ֶειδρνενεω

 

[Yes]

So God "changed" into a man, (even thought scripture tells us that God doesnt change), came down to earth, went from imortality to mortal, then imortality, but God is greater than man, yet he changed into a man, not sure what your really saying here, What are you saying again?

If God came down to earth, then who's in heaven? Who did Jesus pray to? Are you saying the God has a split personality? Really not sure where you get your ideas from.....

God doesn't CHANGE HIS TRUTH.

Jesus IS the TRUTH.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[moorea944]

God doesn't CHANGE HIS TRUTH.

Jesus IS the TRUTH.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Exactally!! So how can Jesus be both? I thought you said that Jesus is the Father? Doesnt make sense does it...

 

[mainliner]

Jesus is God .

so who was he talking to when he said this ??

John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.

 

[Clear]

JayJayDee :

I am responding to post # 171. I clarify because I took a break during the Christmas vacation and had not responded all during that time. I did not want you to think that I did not value your answers and I certainly do agree with your base point that Jesus was not the same entity as his Father in the earliest Christian textual descriptions and interpretations which they, themselves wrote.



Jesus as a second God in Jehovahs Witness Theology
In the Jehovahs Witness DIR I started a thread called : “The Only Begotten God in Jn 1:18”.


1) In the Opening post : I mentioned that I noticed that the Jehovahs Witness Bible correctly translates Jn 1:18
“18 “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.” I was impressed with this correction but wondered what this text meant inside the Jehovahs' Witness theory.

2) In Post #1 : The Jehovahs Witness poster Pegg said : “we believe this is a reference to Jesus Christ”.
Pegg graciously spent more posts explaining J.W. Theology on this point. For example, in post #4, Pegg explained : “So while it is quite proper to view Jesus as a god, we do not viewed him to be the Almighty... hence his position as a god is relative to Jehovah who created him.” That is, he is a God, but he is NOT the Almighty God. He is a second and separate God.

3) In Post #7 : I asked for specific Confirmation if :

#1 “Jehovahs’ Witnesses believe that the Lord God (i.e., God “#1”, The Father; the God Almighty, etc.) is one God and that the pre-creation Jesus is a second god (i.e. God #2, the Son, the lessor god).

And, if I was correct in assuming

# 2 Jehovahs' Witnesses believe that God #1 (i.e. the Lord God) directs god #2 (pre-creation Jesus) and god #2 (pre-creation Jesus) does not direct God #1 (i.e. the Lord God).

I specifically asked : "Is this correct or am I misunderstanding this basic relationship according to Jehovahs’ Witness theology?.. "

4) In post #7 Pegg said : “Yes that is correct.”


In this context of two Gods, it seemed unusual that you implied a God (Jesus), having a God (the Father) in heaven was illogical when discussing this point with Katiemygirl when this IS the very position the Jehovahs Witnesses take as well. (I hope I’m making this point as a logical point rather than as a simple criticism JayJayDee.)

At any rate, IF the Jehovahs Witness Pegg is correct in her claim that Jehovahs Witnesses believe in two Gods (God #1, the Father and God #2, the Son), then I wanted to discover how they themselves specifically distinguish between the two inside the context of the Old Testament Text.

THIS is why I asked Jehovahs Witnesses to give me examples from Old Testament Text where Jesus as a God of the Old Testament is interacting with either prophets or individuals in distinction to God the Father as a God of the Old Testament is interacting with either prophets or individuals.

For example :

The Jehovahs Witness Pegg kindly offered Exodus 23:20 as evidence that Jehovahs Witnesses believe that a God #1 (the Father) promised to send the second God #2 (the Son) as a messenger before the Israelites, to guide them, but then Pegg did not give me any specific examples of when and where their God #2 (the Son) actually interacted as the promised God / Messenger of the Father in the Old Testament Text and what that interaction actually was.

Thus, I asked for 10 examples so as to be able to see a pattern that the witnesses might use to make this specific distinction. Do you have 10 examples? Thank you for your diligence on this point. I realize digging for information takes effort and time and I thank you for both.

In any case JayJayDee, I am grateful for such information and wish you a good spiritual journey

Clear
ειφιειφιω

 

[Clear]

In post # 188 Kjv4me2you said : “I am not JW but I can give 10 examples of Christ in the Torah.”

Hi Kjv4me2you :

As I mentioned in the prior post # 235 to JayJayDee, My request was meant to clarify how one distinguishes God the Father from God the son inside Jehovah’s witness theory where there are two Gods interacting with Israel and their prophets. Your interest is appreciated and I hope you see why none of your examples were relevant to this specific purpose (thought they might be relevant to a different question).

I am not, in my question, criticizing the base Model of separate two Gods in the Jehovahs Witness model, but trying to clarify how they distinguish the interactions of one God (the Father) from another God (the Son) in specific textual examples from the Old Testament.



Good Journey Kjv4me2you.

Clear
ειφιειφιω

 

[katiemygirl]

I suspect this verses4-6 are very different in the earliest manuscript but it will take some time for me to find out, I know Shaul's writings have been terribly corrupted over time. Right now I have no other answer.

Thank you for your honesty. I, too, will look at this passage in the Greek. Let me know what you find out.

 

[katiemygirl]

JayJayDee :

I am responding to post # 171. I clarify because I took a break during the Christmas vacation and had not responded all during that time. I did not want you to think that I did not value your answers and I certainly do agree with your base point that Jesus was not the same entity in the earliest Christian textual descriptions and interpretations which they, themselves wrote.



Jesus as a second God in Jehovahs Witness Theology
In the Jehovahs Witness DIR I started a thread called : “The Only Begotten God in Jn 1:18”.


1) In the Opening post : I mentioned that I noticed that the Jehovahs Witness Bible correctly translates Jn 1:18
“18 “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.” I was impressed with this correction but wondered what this text meant inside the Jehovahs' Witness theory.

2) In Post #1 : The Jehovahs Witness poster Pegg said : “we believe this is a reference to Jesus Christ”.
Pegg graciously spent more posts explaining J.W. Theology on this point. For example, in post #4, Pegg explained : “So while it is quite proper to view Jesus as a god, we do not viewed him to be the Almighty... hence his position as a god is relative to Jehovah who created him.” That is, he is a God, but he is NOT the Almighty God. He is a second and separate God.

3) In Post #7 : I asked for specific Confirmation if :

#1 “Jehovahs’ Witnesses believe that the Lord God (i.e., God “#1”, The Father; the God Almighty, etc.) is one God and that the pre-creation Jesus is a second god (i.e. God #2, the Son, the lessor god).

And, if I was correct in assuming

# 2 Jehovahs' Witnesses believe that God #1 (i.e. the Lord God) directs god #2 (pre-creation Jesus) and god #2 (pre-creation Jesus) does not direct God #1 (i.e. the Lord God).

I specifically asked : "Is this correct or am I misunderstanding this basic relationship according to Jehovahs’ Witness theology?.. "

4) In post #7 Pegg said : “Yes that is correct.”


In this context of two Gods, it seemed unusual that you implied a God (Jesus), having a God (the Father) in heaven was illogical when discussing this point with Katiemygirl when this IS the very position the Jehovahs Witnesses take as well. (I hope I’m making this point as a logical point rather than as a simple criticism JayJayDee.)

At any rate, IF the Jehovahs Witness Pegg is correct in her claim that Jehovahs Witnesses believe in two Gods (God #1, the Father and God #2, the Son), then I wanted to discover how they themselves specifically distinguish between the two inside the context of the Old Testament Text.

THIS is why I asked Jehovahs Witnesses to give me examples from Old Testament Text where Jesus (as a God of the Old Testament) as interacting with either prophets or individuals in distinction to God the Father (as a God of the Old Testament) interacting with either prophets or individuals.

For example :

The Jehovahs Witness Pegg kindly offered Exodus 23:20 as evidence that Jehovahs Witnesses believe that a God #1 (the Father) promised to send the second God #2 (the Son) as a messenger before the Israelites, to guide them, but Pegg did not then give me any specific examples of when and where their God #2 (the Son) actually did this in the Old Testament Text and what that interaction actually was.

Thus, I asked for 10 examples so as to be able to see a pattern that the witnesses might use to make this specific distinction. Do you have 10 examples? Thank you for your diligence on this point. I realize digging for information takes effort and time and I thank you for both.

In any case JayJayDee, I am grateful for such information and wish you a good spiritual journey

Clear
ειφιειφιω

Good post! I look forward to Jay Jay's answer. I've wondered about this as well.
Katie

 

[mainliner]

Was the Quran written before the bible ?

 

[Godobeyer]

Was the Quran written before the bible ?

Quran after the Bible