The LORD is my shepherd

[Redemptionsong]

Its not about when they were canonized. It has to do with the directness of God's revelation. If God literally speaks to Moses, that is hearing DIRECTLY. A prophet only hears indirectly through visions and dreams. It's not the same, I'm sorry. And as for the writings? We are talking about just regular inspiration. The author of Esther did not hear Gods voice at all. They were simply recording a significant portion of Jewish history that has lessons for all time.

So basically, yes, it is graduated. It is not all one book that God dictated to various secretaries -- no only is that fiction, but it does a disservice to the contributions of the very human authors who recorded the texts.

The idea that God chose these metaphors, as if he dictated the book to a secretary, is a fiction. You are attributing to God what men have done. that is a no-no.

You are basically trying to get more out of the text than what is actually there. You do this because you believe the text to be more than what it actually is. That is my overall assessment of what you go on to say.

Moses was a prophet, not a lip-reader! He, like all true prophets found in scripture, was chosen by God and underwent examination by God. You completely understate the awesome experience of being called by YHWH to speak His words. You seem to overlook the fact that many of God's prophets were abused and killed because the message they proclaimed was not popular or easy on the ear.

The prophets that follow after Moses also follow the God of Moses. They listen to the same God speak, and hear a consistent message. I find it absolutely mind boggling that you should claim to believe in the word-for-word accuracy of the Torah, but think that other prophets, like Ezekiel, do not present an accurate account of God's words.

I'm very happy to be counted amongst those who believe the word of God in scripture. The word of God is to be trusted. As the psalmist says, 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path'.

If you doubt the accuracy of the Prophets and Writings, what makes you believe in the accuracy of the Torah?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Moses was a prophet, not a lip-reader! He, like all true prophets found in scripture, was chosen by God and underwent examination by God. You completely understate the awesome experience of being called by YHWH to speak His words. You seem to overlook the fact that many of God's prophets were abused and killed because the message they proclaimed was not popular or easy on the ear.

The prophets that follow after Moses also follow the God of Moses. They listen to the same God speak, and hear a consistent message. I find it absolutely mind boggling that you should claim to believe in the word-for-word accuracy of the Torah, but think that other prophets, like Ezekiel, do not present an accurate account of God's words.

I'm very happy to be counted amongst those who believe the word of God in scripture. The word of God is to be trusted. As the psalmist says, 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path'.

If you doubt the accuracy of the Prophets and Writings, what makes you believe in the accuracy of the Torah?

I don't know that this disussion had or has anything to do with accuracy at all. That is an entirely different thread. This little sub-thread is wrapped around the question of how much God is responsible for the Prophets (and the writings) and how much the authority is diminished because God is not directly responsible for those books.

Unless I'm not remembring correctly, this sub-thread began as a part of the discussion on whether "God" chooses a metaphor which "He" will then use constantly throughout the various books that have been collected into the canon, or whether the choice of a metaphor in the text is the decision of the human author, meaning that a particular metaphor may mean one thing in one book, and can refer to something else entirely in another book. If you want to join in on that discussion, have at it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't know that this disussion had or has anything to do with accuracy at all. That is an entirely different thread. This little sub-thread is wrapped around the question of how much God is responsible for the Prophets (and the writings) and how much the authority is diminished because God is not directly responsible for those books.

Unless I'm not remembring correctly, this sub-thread began as a part of the discussion on whether "God" chooses a metaphor which "He" will then use constantly throughout the various books that have been collected into the canon, or whether the choice of a metaphor in the text is the decision of the human author, meaning that a particular metaphor may mean one thing in one book, and can refer to something else entirely in another book. If you want to join in on that discussion, have at it.

A true prophet will employ the metaphors that God reveals.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that David and Ezekiel revealed God's choice of metaphor?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A true prophet will employ the metaphors that God reveals.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that David and Ezekiel revealed God's choice of metaphor?

No Redemption. The prophet speaks God's message, but in his own words, his own languge, and his own cultural understanding.

 

[Deeje]

Strong's gives us a broad definition of a 'mediator'. But the scriptures explain what God intended us to understand!

1 Timothy 2:5. 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;'

This tells us that the mediator is unique. This means that Moses was not the one mediator between God and men. Only Jesus Christ is the ONE mediator between God and men.

Strongs definition is fairly clear...a Mediator is....

1. one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
   
   
2. a medium of communication, arbitrator.

So what is there to be confused about? A Mediator is a "go-between"....one who is instrumental in reconciling two estranged parties. One of the parties cannot be the Mediator.

The two parties in this case are God and the human race. What separates them is sin. Jesus was sent by God to pay for Adam's sin by offering his perfect life in exchange for ours.....and to eventually, by means of his Kingdom, to bring humankind back to God. Its not really more complicated than that.

If sin is the barrier, that separates us from God, then why do we not need a mediator between us and Jesus, whom you say is both God and man? I find nothing in the Bible to even suggest such a thing....it is only found in trinitarian dogma. All it does is muddy the clear waters of truth...."one God...the Father"...."one Lord Jesus Christ", his son. ( 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Now let's add another passage of scripture.
Galatians 3:19,20.' Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.'

Jesus is a mediator representing many. Christ died for all, but not all will qualify to have the value of his sacrifice applied to them. There is criteria that we must fulfill according to Jesus. (Matthew 7:21-23) Anyone not found "doing the will of the Father" will be rejected outright....there will not be a place in the Kingdom for them....nor will the majority pass the test. "Few" are found on the difficult road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The one mediator mediates between God and men. But as Galatians 3:20 says, the mediator is 'not a mediator of one'. The mediator is not ALL of one side or the other. Nevertheless, God is one, meaning that God cannot be divided.

"God cannot be divided"? Isn't that exactly what the trinity does? It carves the person of God up into three distinct individuals who are all said to be one God. I'm sorry but that defies logic.
God never once presented himself as three parts of one deity, able to speak to one another and to be in different places at the same time. The three "persons" of the trinity are all said to be "God" but there are never three "persons" ever mentioned in connection with God. If all are "God" then you have three gods. You cannot squeeze three gods into one head and claim monotheism because at no time does the Bible do that.

The Father, son, and holy spirit are spoken about in the Bible, but never as a trinity. Jesus never once said that he was God incarnate. And the holy spirit is never once called "God". It is God's spirit but it is something that emanates from him.....his dynamic energy....the means by which his will is accomplished.

The one spirit of God is in the mediator, just as the flesh and blood of the human is in the mediator. He is both God and man!

No...the scripture does not say that at all.....Christ is the Mediator between God and men. Nowhere does it say that God is a mediator between himself and men.....that is Christ's job. Sin is the barrier that alienates us from the Father. Nothing sinful can come before God, so he arranged for Christ to remove the barrier and bring us back to him.

It is through the mediator that we become reconciled to God, because God is in the mediator. If God was not in the mediator we could not be reconciled with God. It is God that saves us, not man.

Read what you just wrote and see that it is a complete contradiction of scripture. God provided the Mediator....he is NOT the Mediator. The trinity screws everything up....it makes simple concepts into incomprehensible nonsense IMO.

 

[Misty Woods]

John 1:14 states clearly that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us'. This refers to the person we call 'the Son of God'. The Word is spirit, the flesh is a human, named Jesus.

What do you think 1 John 5:7 means? 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'.

As some additional homework, you might like to check out Ephesians 5:4. 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'. Who is the 'one Lord'?

John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his (Jesus) glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3. Even a child knows the difference from being with someone, or actually being that person.

At any time in your lifetime, have you ever thought to find out for yourself, where exactly this trinity teaching that you are clinging to came from????

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, then what would be the correct rendering from an imperfect human that sincerely wants to know the truth that Jesus spoke of? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. Our Almighty God Jehovah has provided much inspired scripture, which I have happily shared with you so far, that more than explains who He is, who his son is, and what exactly is the Holy Spirit. When an imperfect human chooses to ignore other portions of the Bible by building his/her belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then he/she is indeed making the clear statements of scripture conform to their imperfect human conceptions of what may be implied, rather than accepting God’s Inspired Scripture for what it states right there in black and white.

“But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

 

[Redemptionsong]

No Redemption. The prophet speaks God's message, but in his own words, his own languge, and his own cultural understanding.

Every prophet, and the people of nearly every culture, would understand the metaphor of a shepherd, which is why God employed it!

 

[Redemptionsong]

No Redemption. The prophet speaks God's message, but in his own words, his own languge, and his own cultural understanding.

The big problem that you create by taking this liberal view of prophecy is that the resulting literature is no longer the word of God; it has become the word of man.

Just picture the poor prophet pacing back and forth looking for the appropriate metaphor. He thinks, Should I call him a 'goat' or a 'sheep'? David called the good guys 'sheep', but I think I'll call them 'goats'. I mean, it doesn't really matter, does it?!

And why, in your opinion, is the prophet Moses given word-for-word exactness whilst other poor old prophets, like Isaiah, are only given cloudy impressions? So far, you have not explained this anomaly.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Strongs definition is fairly clear...a Mediator is....

1. one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
   
   
2. a medium of communication, arbitrator.

So what is there to be confused about? A Mediator is a "go-between"....one who is instrumental in reconciling two estranged parties. One of the parties cannot be the Mediator.

The two parties in this case are God and the human race. What separates them is sin. Jesus was sent by God to pay for Adam's sin by offering his perfect life in exchange for ours.....and to eventually, by means of his Kingdom, to bring humankind back to God. Its not really more complicated than that.

If sin is the barrier, that separates us from God, then why do we not need a mediator between us and Jesus, whom you say is both God and man? I find nothing in the Bible to even suggest such a thing....it is only found in trinitarian dogma. All it does is muddy the clear waters of truth...."one God...the Father"...."one Lord Jesus Christ", his son. ( 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)



Jesus is a mediator representing many. Christ died for all, but not all will qualify to have the value of his sacrifice applied to them. There is criteria that we must fulfill according to Jesus. (Matthew 7:21-23) Anyone not found "doing the will of the Father" will be rejected outright....there will not be a place in the Kingdom for them....nor will the majority pass the test. "Few" are found on the difficult road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14)



"God cannot be divided"? Isn't that exactly what the trinity does? It carves the person of God up into three distinct individuals who are all said to be one God. I'm sorry but that defies logic.
God never once presented himself as three parts of one deity, able to speak to one another and to be in different places at the same time. The three "persons" of the trinity are all said to be "God" but there are never three "persons" ever mentioned in connection with God. If all are "God" then you have three gods. You cannot squeeze three gods into one head and claim monotheism because at no time does the Bible do that.

The Father, son, and holy spirit are spoken about in the Bible, but never as a trinity. Jesus never once said that he was God incarnate. And the holy spirit is never once called "God". It is God's spirit but it is something that emanates from him.....his dynamic energy....the means by which his will is accomplished.



No...the scripture does not say that at all.....Christ is the Mediator between God and men. Nowhere does it say that God is a mediator between himself and men.....that is Christ's job. Sin is the barrier that alienates us from the Father. Nothing sinful can come before God, so he arranged for Christ to remove the barrier and bring us back to him.



Read what you just wrote and see that it is a complete contradiction of scripture. God provided the Mediator....he is NOT the Mediator. The trinity screws everything up....it makes simple concepts into incomprehensible nonsense IMO.

Since an understanding of the term 'mediator' is so central to this discussion, it would do no harm to look at this more closely.

Strong's definition is not very helpful because it does not explain the 'nature' of the mediator. You have immediately assumed that the mediator is a man, and not God. This means that he is a mediator of only one, the man. Yet scripture tells us that a mediator is 'not a mediator of one'.

I see that you have tried to explain this expression differently, by suggesting that the phrase 'of one' must be referring to men. But this makes no sense. Why would God say that a mediator is not a mediator between God and one man?

God's mediator, Jesus Christ, is sent to take mankind's punishment for sin. God's mediator must, therefore, be a perfect and acceptable sacrifice. So the acceptable sacrifice must be human flesh and blood combined with the unblemished nature of his soul and spirit. How can the spirit of man be 'acceptable' unless it is perfectly holy? Whose Spirit is perfectly holy? How many Holy Spirits are there? If you say, Only one, then you are admitting that Jesus had the one Spirit of God within him. This is what made him God's Son.

 

[Redemptionsong]

John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his (Jesus) glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3. Even a child knows the difference from being with someone, or actually being that person.

At any time in your lifetime, have you ever thought to find out for yourself, where exactly this trinity teaching that you are clinging to came from????

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, then what would be the correct rendering from an imperfect human that sincerely wants to know the truth that Jesus spoke of? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. Our Almighty God Jehovah has provided much inspired scripture, which I have happily shared with you so far, that more than explains who He is, who his son is, and what exactly is the Holy Spirit. When an imperfect human chooses to ignore other portions of the Bible by building his/her belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then he/she is indeed making the clear statements of scripture conform to their imperfect human conceptions of what may be implied, rather than accepting God’s Inspired Scripture for what it states right there in black and white.

“But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

You can guarantee that where people have difficulty explaining a passage of scripture they will do the next best thing - alter it!

I am in full agreement with the argument that scripture is an 'unbroken' revelation. Scripture interprets scripture, and faithful exegesis only turns to personal interpretation when the internal integrity of scripture is abandoned.

On another thread, 'Solomon's big question', I attempted to show that the question that trinitarians and unitarians should be trying to answer is the question posed by Solomon; 'But will God in very deed dwell with men on earth?'

I am not at all concerned about specific denominational or theological standpoints on the trinity. When discussing this issue it's the use of the scriptures, in the light of the Holy Spirit's revelation, that interests me. So you can forget all the encyclopedic references to the trinity. I'm interested in the passages of scripture that tell us that God has come to dwell on earth - or not.

You are most welcome to try to demonstrate to me that Jesus Christ was NOT GOD COME TO EARTH. You must demonstrate that the Spirit of God was not in the man Jesus, because I am already convinced that Jesus Christ was 100% human. I am arguing that Jesus Christ was 100% human and 100% God. When you combine the two you have what is known as the Son of man and the Son of God. Yet, with spiritual insight, I am able to call Jesus Christ 'My Lord and my God'. It is He whom I serve, and He who has been given dominion over us, IMO.

In making your case, you should also understand the implications of God not coming to earth.

 

[Deeje]

Since an understanding of the term 'mediator' is so central to this discussion, it would do no harm to look at this more closely.

Strong's definition is not very helpful because it does not explain the 'nature' of the mediator.

It doesn’t have to explain the nature of the Mediator....the role of the Mediator is self explanatory......that role clearly given to Jesus by his Father.

You have immediately assumed that the mediator is a man, and not God. This means that he is a mediator of only one, the man. Yet scripture tells us that a mediator is 'not a mediator of one'.

1 Timothy 2:5, 6: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”

What does it say? The Mediator is a man, Christ Jesus, and he acts between God and men....humans. He “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all”......so his life paid the debt for all of us, yet not all of us will benefit from that ransom.....some will disqualify themselves.

What does the ransom demand? Why is the payment one human life for all?

I see that you have tried explain this expression differently, by suggesting that the phrase 'of one' must be referring to men. But this makes no sense. Why would God say that a mediator is not a mediator between God and one man?

No, I explained it from the scriptures without a trinitarian lens because scripture was not written with a trinity in mind. Jesus is the Mediator between God and men, so he cannot be God.

If you have two parties in conflict and a Mediator is appointed, he cannot be one of the parties.....how is that not a blind Freddy thing?

God's mediator, Jesus Christ, is sent to take mankind's punishment for sin. God's mediator must, therefore, be a perfect and acceptable sacrifice. So the acceptable sacrifice must be human flesh and blood combined with the unblemished nature of his soul and spirit.

Ah, now this is where it starts to comes undone IMO....you are correct that the ransom must be perfect and acceptable flesh and blood sacrifice to atone for sin, but then you start talking about the nature of his soul and spirit. He was 100% human but he was not God. He did not have to be God to pay the debt.....all he had to be was Adam’s equivalent....a perfect sinless human. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that he was anything else but “the last Adam” a mortal human, paying for what the ”first Adam” did. Jesus was not an immortal half man/half god.

What is atonement? “At-one-meant”.....one for one...”an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”....that was God’s law. Whatever was lost was compensated for by an equivalent.

Adam’s sin lost perfect life for all his children and he paid for his sin with his own life, but there was no one who could pay a ransom for his offspring, who were plunged into this debt through no fault on their part. Jesus volunteered to offer his life for theirs.

How can the spirit of man be 'acceptable' unless it is perfectly holy? Whose Spirit is perfectly holy? How many Holy Spirits are there? If you say, Only one, then you are admitting that Jesus had the one Spirit of God within him. This is what made him God's Son.

The man Jesus was a human. He died physically like any other human. Having God’s spirit was what made him the Messiah. It was given to him at his baptism. Having been created by God is what made him God’s son. All of God’s sons are created.....angelic and human.

 

[Redemptionsong]

A true mediator views both perspectives; the perspective of man and the perspective of God. To be able to do this, he must be fully human and fully God.

In your final paragraph you say 'God's spirit was what made him the Messiah'. What Spirit was this? Was it not the Spirit of Christ, the same Spirit that followed the Israelites in the wilderness?
1 Corinthians 10:4. 'And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ'.

God came to earth as the Christ, and dwelt in the temple we call Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Every prophet, and the people of nearly every culture, would understand the metaphor of a shepherd, which is why God employed it!

No one was disputing that it would be understood. The question was who employed it. You say God. I say the human authors.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The big problem that you create by taking this liberal view of prophecy is that the resulting literature is no longer the word of God; it has become the word of man.

Just picture the poor prophet pacing back and forth looking for the appropriate metaphor. He thinks, Should I call him a 'goat' or a 'sheep'? David called the good guys 'sheep', but I think I'll call them 'goats'. I mean, it doesn't really matter, does it?!

And why, in your opinion, is the prophet Moses given word-for-word exactness whilst other poor old prophets, like Isaiah, are only given cloudy impressions? So far, you have not explained this anomaly.

Because God works through human beings, for the most part. When someone is sick, it is human beings that care for them with modern medicine and with acts of kindness. When someone is stolen from, it is human beings that reach out and find the thief and bring him to justice. When someone is hungry and cannot afford to feed themselves, it is human beings that reach out with acts of charity. When a group is oppressed, it is human beings that fight to help them. Whether it is the old, the brutalized, the orphaned, etc., it is human beings that reach out, acting as the hand of God. This is how God chooses to act in this world. Why does it surprise you then that he chooses to speak through human beings?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because God works through human beings, for the most part. When someone is sick, it is human beings that care for them with modern medicine and with acts of kindness. When someone is stolen from, it is human beings that reach out and find the thief and bring him to justice. When someone is hungry and cannot afford to feed themselves, it is human beings that reach out with acts of charity. When a group is oppressed, it is human beings that fight to help them. Whether it is the old, the brutalized, the orphaned, etc., it is human beings that reach out, acting as the hand of God. This is how God chooses to act in this world. Why does it surprise you then that he chooses to speak through human beings?

Humanists, and avowed atheists, would argue that they are capable of acts of kindness, justice and charity. None would claim that God told them to do it!

I reckon that most people of religion would say that their works of kindness were prompted by a sense of duty to do good. It is not a direct command from God, but a general recognition that to do good pleases God.

The true prophet is different. He is called by God to spread a word; a heavy responsibility is placed on his shoulders. He knows exactly what God wants him to say (or indicate), and to whom he should address his words.

Prophecy requires the prophet to be under the power of the Holy Spirit.

[Can you now tell me why you think Moses was so different to the other biblical prophets?]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Humanists, and avowed atheists, would argue that they are capable of acts of kindness, justice and charity. None would claim that God told them to do it!

I reckon that most people of religion would say that their works of kindness were prompted by a sense of duty to do good. It is not a direct command from God, but a general recognition that to do good pleases God.

The true prophet is different. He is called by God to spread a word; a heavy responsibility is placed on his shoulders. He knows exactly what God wants him to say (or indicate), and to whom he should address his words.

Balaam was a pagan prophet, and yet he prophesied for God. Remember that God also used pagan nations to reward or punish Israel with peace or captivity. So yes, anyone, even someone who doesn't even believe in God, can do God's work.

 

[Deeje]

A true mediator views both perspectives; the perspective of man and the perspective of God. To be able to do this, he must be fully human and fully God.

We are told not to go “beyond what is written”.....apparently, the trinity has you going way beyond what is written IMO. Nowhere is Jesus said to be “fully human and fully God” in any scripture. This is pure unbiblical trinitarian ideas without any solid foundation.

In your final paragraph you say 'God's spirit was what made him the Messiah'. What Spirit was this? Was it not the Spirit of Christ, the same Spirit that followed the Israelites in the wilderness?

It was God’s holy spirit that anointed Jesus for his role as “the Christ”. He was just Jesus the carpenter's son before the age of 30 when he was led to John the Baptist to begin his appointment as Messiah. Only with his baptism and anointing with holy spirit did he gain the power to perform miracles. His own siblings did not believe in him until after his death and resurrection....that is why he entrusted the care of his mother to the apostle John. As firstborn, her care was his responsibility. Her spiritual welfare was uppermost in his mind, so he did not give her care over to his (at that time) unbelieving brothers. He was not God in the flesh, he was produced by God's spirit as a mortal human.....which is the only way that he could offer his life for ours. God cannot die. And Jesus did not resurrect himself. (Acts 2:32)

The holy spirit is what empowers all of God’s servants to complete their assignments. I believe from my own studies of the scriptures, that it is not a 'person' but the administration of God’s power, sent in a measured response to what is needed to accomplish God's will or to bring comfort and aid to his worshippers....never too little, never too much. Those “filled” with holy spirit were not filled with a person but were recipients of God’s power according to their own circumstances.

As the "Logos" (God’s spokesman) the pre-human Jesus was “with” his God from the “beginning” of his existence. He spoke for God and acted in his behalf in all of Israel’s history right up to the time of his execution at their hands. After that, God’s covenant with Israel was fulfilled, and due to their continued disobedience, God abandoned them as a nation.....but not as individuals. (Matthew 23:37-39)

On the night before his death, Jesus instituted the “new covenant” with his 11 faithful apostles. He continues to guide and direct those who obey his teachings to this day. He will reject those who do not. (Matthew 7:21-23) These do not acknowledge any wrongdoing despite the fact that Jesus calls them 'lawless' ones. Because they do not love the truth, but have embraced the lies, they have no idea that they are breaking God's laws. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Why? Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. It's a special kind of "blindness". God will not correct them.

1 Corinthians 10:4. 'And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ'.

Yes, and it is important to understand who it was that these words were directed to......not all Christians will go to heaven. Only a 'chosen' (elected) few will have that privilege. They are said to be ’kings and priests’ who will rule with Christ in his kingdom for 1,000 years. (Revelation 20:6) After which time rulership returns to God, as it should have been in the beginning.
Kings need subjects and priests need sinners for whom to provide their priestly services....who are these ones? There are no sinners in heaven....and kings do not rule other kings.

God came to earth as the Christ, and dwelt in the temple we call Jesus.

There is not one thing in the Bible to even suggest that Christ was God incarnate. He did not have to be.

What was the purpose of the Temple in Jewish life? Wasn’t it the place where sacrifices were offered and where God’s worship was conducted? What better symbolism could Jesus have used to demonstrate the importance of his sacrifice and the need to return to true worship?

What was the situation of the Jews at that time?
What did Jesus say would happen to the literal temple? He said that “a stone would not be left upon a stone and not be thrown down”.....it would be completely destroyed, but the true temple, of which the earthly Temple was a “type”, would remain in heaven where the resurrected Christ presented the value of his sacrifice to his God as his appointed High Priest. Only by coming to this symbolic 'Temple' could any human gain everlasting life by offering to God what is due to him....our love, loyalty, obedience and respect.

I am sad that you cannot see how far Christendom has strayed from the original teachings of Christ and his apostles. The rot set in very early, so the foretold apostasy in Christianity is so old that most people have no idea what original Christianity even looked like. It is not hard to research....

This is what I believe the Bible teaches...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus was raised up a spiritual being, incorruptible and immortal, the firstborn of the dead. Thomas called him, My Lord and my God because that is what he became to Thomas. Jesus Christ becomes Lord and God to all who would call themselves his sheep. It was the Father's will that we should see Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. He is, therefore, MY Lord, Shepherd, Saviour and God.
1 Corinthians 15:57,58. 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord'. Whose work do we do? Who do we serve if not God in Christ?

I find if we start reading at John 20:17 (before verse 28) we find Jesus' words stating that the resurrected Jesus believes he still has a God and a Father.
Even in heaven resurrected Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12.
So, yes, victory comes through Christ via his God.- Revelation 4:11.
Jesus promised to reveal his Father's name (YHWH) according to John 17:11-12; John 17:26.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John 1:1, 2:
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”
Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his (Jesus) glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3. Even a child knows the difference from being with someone, or actually being that person..............

I would like to take the liberty to add:

Since the NT was Not originally written in English we find the same Greek grammar rule applies at John1:1 and at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B
The letter ' a ' was added at John 1 but the letter ' a' was inserted at Acts even though the same Greek grammar rule applies in both verses.

Psalms 90:2 informs us that God had No beginning: meaning God is from everlasting ( No beginning )
Whereas pre-human Jesus was " IN " the beginning but Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was ' before ' the beginning.....
This is why John believed that Jesus was the beginning of the creation by God as John wrote about pre-human Jesus at Revelation 3:12

 

[Redemptionsong]

Balaam was a pagan prophet, and yet he prophesied for God. Remember that God also used pagan nations to reward or punish Israel with peace or captivity. So yes, anyone, even someone who doesn't even believe in God, can do God's work.

God calls the prophet, and gives the prophet his words. All the 'literary prophets' were from amongst the tribes of Israel.

And, as regards Moses being so different from other prophets? You appear to be avoiding this question.