If Jesus is God why doesn't the Bible say so?

[Aberamentho]

The curse for adding, is adding to the form it is in NOW.

No after it was written. Not "NOW", that doesn't make sense.

It's alright to do it until the generation you happen to live in?

I don't think so.

Because the current form is debated still.

Meaning it is not agreed upon what is in the Bible.

Also the form it is in now IS CHANGED.

 

[Aberamentho]

Either Protestants are cursed for their removal.

Catholics for the interpolations over the course of 2,000, at least they use the original MSS. Now.

Protestants are cursed for the removal of books then.

 

[Evie]

So you no longer think the Bible is free from human error and manipulation, alterations, that is good.

Because you thought before if one thinks this, which is a fact I have proven just with the Protestant vs. Catholic example, that it was because of "self deception."

At least you now know it is not. Just a fact of life, not deception, the Bible has been messed with in reality.

So at least you are not deceived anymore in thinking that admitting the truth is self deception.

That's a good thing.

Not admitting facts are facts is self deception and just plain deception.

I think you have misunderstood my words. The Written Word Of God, His Word is in the exact form God wanted it to be for whatever reason known only to God. That being so, it can be accepted as being perfect. Regardless of human thinking that it contains imperfections or is lacking in any area whatsoever.

 

[Aberamentho]

The curse for adding, is adding to the form it is in NOW.

This is the first time you attempted even addressing the issues I brought up.

Otherwise it's been nothing but faith rhetoric.

You don't address Sons of God vs sons of Israel because you have to admit that it has been changed and said that was impossible and anyone who thought otherwise was deceiving themselves.

If so, explain why the Masorah decided to change the word "God" to "Israel" in Dt. 32?

How it ended up in English translations uncorrected for centuries because they didn't have good MSS.

The Catholic Church has or has access to all the oldest MSS. today and uses them all. Samaritan Torah, Pes.hitta, DSS, LXX, Hebrew as a footnote usually because that is the Masoretic, Vulgate too.

Why don't Protestants correct their NIVs and KJVs?

 

[Aberamentho]

I think you have misunderstood my words. The Written Word Of God, His Word is in the exact form God wanted it to be for whatever reason known only to God. That being so, it can be accepted as being perfect. Regardless of human thinking that it contains imperfections or is lacking in any area whatsoever.

It factually has human corruptions to it.

It is easy to prove and I have just using the Protestant vs Catholic example.

You are deceiving yourself for nothing because everything I said confirms it and imperfections are a plenty.

All thinking is human if you can think with words. Unless you are God.

It's responsible for your self deception and their mass deception.

 

[Evie]

It factually has human corruptions to it.

It is easy to prove and I have just using the Protestant vs Catholic example.

You are deceiving yourself for nothing because everything I said confirms it and imperfections are a plenty.

All thinking is human if you can think with words. Unless you are God.

It's responsible for your self deception and their mass deception.

If you have found so many 'imperfections', it means you have really been reading God's Word. . And that is a blessing. You will benefit from feeding your inner spirit the Holy Word of God. And always keep in mind, the Word is Jesus.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible.

Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows the word TRINITY does Not appear in the Bible.
Seems to me that when people hear Father, Son and Holy Spirit they conclude they are all the same person.
To me, the Scriptures teach they are separate.
The Father is the Creator - Revelation 4:11
The Son is a creation according to Revelation 3:14;1:5
The Holy Spirit is God's spirit - Psalms 104:30, and is neuter as the word 'it' as mentioned at Numbers 11:17,25.
Which God's spirit is also neuter in the KJV Bible at Romans 8:16,26.
So, the Trinity or Triad concept is from outside of Scripture but just wrongly taught as being Scripture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

the word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. In God's Written Word. where did it come from? the Church.

As I previously mentioned especially when un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks (Non-Christians) then those unfaithful ones started to adopt the non-Christian Trinity concept as being Christian, when it is really a teaching in theory and in philosophy but Not biblical, and can Not be reconciled to biblical Christianity.
That mixing or fusing of non-biblical teachings with biblical teachings became a blending of 'secular with the sacred'.
Which has resulted in a religious ' syncretism ' of differing beliefs often paganized with pagan paint, so to speak.

 

[Aberamentho]

But Mohammed descended from Abrahams union with Hagar and their son Ishmael.. God's promised son is through the union of Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaiah. God gave this promise to Abraham and Sarah.

God never said anything about a "promised son." #1. Unless you mean Isaac.

#2 While it was Isaac to whom the Covenant was promised, which the sign of initiation into is circumcision like all the Israelites had to do in order to belong to the Covenant.

Ishmael was circumcised into said Covenant and blessed with 12 sons, "Princes" and the Ishmaelites are the Arabs today, Mohammed (saws) is a descendant of Ishmael and Abraham, Heber, Shem.

So that tidbit about Isaac is irrelevant as Ishmael was a part of the Covenant himself. Isaac is the typical Biblical second born but favored son, like Jacob for instance. Ishmael is not dishonored though, Esau is. PBWT All.

Hagar(pbwh) shaming seems a little...distasteful, what does it matter that he was only an initiate into the Covenant, everyone but Isaac was? Maybe even Abraham (pbwh) if you want to be super literal was just an initiate into his promised through Sarah (pbwh)miracle child's Covenant with God.

 

[Aberamentho]

As I previously mentioned especially when un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks (Non-Christians) then those unfaithful ones started to adopt the non-Christian Trinity concept as being Christian, when it is really a teaching in theory and in philosophy but Not biblical, and can Not be reconciled to biblical Christianity.
That mixing or fusing of non-biblical teachings with biblical teachings became a blending of 'secular with the sacred'.
Which has resulted in a religious ' syncretism ' of differing beliefs often paganized with pagan paint, so to speak.

Blame the Jews, right?

They consisted of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, neither were accepted BY Greeks or Romans because they didn't believe Jesus (pbwh) was God or in Trinity, rejected Paul.

Other way around it wasn't unfaithful Jews but Pauline Romans.

In fact both Nazarenes and Ebionites were condemned as heretics as early as Iranaeus with the Ebionites for being Mosaic Law abiding Jews and rejecting Paul and later the Nazarenes too by Epiphanius for unclear reasons other than being Torah keeping Jews who believe Jesus (pbwh) was the Messiah. But not God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But humans added to it, as MS. comparisons have proven interpolations do exist in the New Testament.
Protestants removed the Apocrypha still in use today by Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
You should rethink that statement. It's factually incorrect. And proven so. Admitted even.
When scholars admit to things like this and they have including Catholic Bibles in footnotes and introductions it isn't self anything but especially not self deception.
What you are saying is a result of that actually.

To me, the Bible canon was set early on the scene and established by the end of the first century, so all anyone has to do is merely testify that the first-century writings of Bible canon is considered as the authoritative Word from God.
- Psalms 119:105

Gospel writer Luke forewarned us that false shepherds would fleece the flock of God - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
The ancient manuscripts support the ' 66' books of Bible canon, thus the 'apocryphal books' simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the harmonious '66' books, which have cross-reference verses and passages throughout the ' 66' Bible books. Also, Jesus' never referred to or quoted from apocryphal books.

 

[Evie]

God never said anything about a "promised son." #1.

#2 While it was Isaac to whom the Covenant was promised, which the sign of initiation into is circumcision like all the Israelites had to do in order to belong to the Covenant.

Ishmael was circumcised into said Covenant and blessed with 12 sons, "Princes" and the Ishmaelites are the Arabs today, Mohammed (saws) is a descendant of Ishmael and Abraham, Heber, Shem.

So that tidbit about Isaac is irrelevant as Ishmael was a part of the Covenant himself. Isaac is the typical Biblical second born but favored son, like Jacob for instance. Ishmael is not dishonored though, Esau is.

According to Genesis 21. 1-3. Isaac was the promised son of God..no doubt whatsoever. And think. Sarah was barren and could not conceive, and on top of that she was very very old. So God had to have performed the seemingly impossible. Ishmael was born out of Hagar the young bond woman. No such miracle needed in that conception.

 

[Aberamentho]

If you have found so many 'imperfections', it means you have really been reading God's Word. . And that is a blessing. You will benefit from feeding your inner spirit the Holy Word of God. And always keep in mind, the Word is Jesus.

I have read the entire Bible and most of the non canonical Apocrypha too.

That's irrelevant though. I read a book. And?

I know it better than you and it is why I do not believe it is all the Word of God, it is a matter of determing what is and isn't honoring God, and plenty of it doesn't honor God properly even does so abhorrently at times.

 

[Aberamentho]

According to Genesis 21. 1-3. Isaac was the promised son of God..no doubt whatsoever. And think. Sarah was barren and could not conceive, and on top of that she was very very old. So God had to have performed the seemingly impossible. Ishmael was born out of Hagar the young bond woman. No such miracle needed in that conception.

She was 90 something.

And barren.

Miracle. Anyway irrelevant. At least to the fact that Ishmael was a part of Isaac's Covenant, otherwise I wasn't ever interested. Brought it up in passing only.

But you said "promised son through Isaac" I am pretty sure.

Which would be not Isaac.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Blame the Jews, right?
They consisted of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, neither were accepted BY Greeks or Romans because they didn't believe Jesus (pbwh) was God or in Trinity, rejected Paul.
Other way around it wasn't unfaithful Jews but Pauline Romans.
In fact both Nazarenes and Ebionites were condemned as heretics as early as Iranaeus with the Ebionites for being Mosaic Law abiding Jews and rejecting Paul and later the Nazarenes too by Epiphanius for unclear reasons other than being Torah keeping Jews who believe Jesus (pbwh) was the Messiah. But not God.

I want to apologize for Not making myself more clear. I was Not blaming the Jews, but rather the 'UN-faithful Jews'.
Those 'UN-faithful Jews' are the ones of Acts of the Apostles 2:22-23 <- they were Not Romans of any sort.
Those 'UN-faithful' Jews ( knowingly or un-knowingly ) shared in Jesus' death at Acts of the Apostles 3:12-15.
Under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law they were to bring Jesus to justice as mentioned at Deuteronomy 21:1-9.
So, to me, they shared in the culpability of community responsibility of failing to bring Jesus justice.

 

[Aberamentho]

But Mohammed descended from Abrahams union with Hagar and their son Ishmael.. God's promised son is through the union of Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaiah. God gave this promise to Abraham and Sarah.

Through the union of Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaiah(sic).

I imagine you mean Isaac?

Well if the promised son is through the three and Isaac one of the three who is this "God's promised son?"

I wonder.

 

[Evie]

I have read the entire Bible and most of the non canonical Apocrypha too.

That's irrelevant though. I read a book. And?

I know it better than you and it is why I do not believe it is all the Word of God, it is a matter of determing what is and isn't honoring God, and plenty of it doesn't honor God properly even does so abhorrently at times.

You are incorrect in supposing you read just 'a book'. What you did was feed your spirit with every word you read. Living food, not just words. It was as though Jesus was speaking to you.

 

[Aberamentho]

I want to apologize for Not making myself more clear. I was Not blaming the Jews, but rather the 'UN-faithful Jews'.
Those 'UN-faithful Jews' are the ones of Acts of the Apostles 2:22-23 <- they were Not Romans of any sort.
Those 'UN-faithful' Jews ( knowingly or un-knowingly ) shared in Jesus' death at Acts of the Apostles 3:12-15.
Under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law they were to bring Jesus to justice as mentioned at Deuteronomy 21:1-9.
So, to me, they shared in the culpability of community responsibility of failing to bring Jesus justice.

They abused Mosaic Law, that was a long time before the Trinity or the deification of Jesus (pbwh) and the unfaithful Jews of Acts had nothing to do with it.

Was it something else you were blaming them for? I thought the corrupt doctrines of today is what you meant and that is because of Pauline Romans. Jesus (pbwh) as God and Trinity specifically.

 

[Aberamentho]

You are incorrect in supposing you read just 'a book'. What you did was feed your spirit with every word you read. Living food, not just words. It was as though Jesus was speaking to you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Save it.

 

[Evie]

Through the union of Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaiah(sic).

I imagine you mean Isaac?

Well if the promised son is through the three and Isaac one of the three who is this "God's promised son?"

I wonder.

The promise of a son from God was always to be via Sarah and Abraham. Long before Hagar came on the scene. Just prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.