And please take into account the 17 or more times that Jesus says he's not God, while never once claiming to be God. (I've already pointed out that
John 8:58 is simply a gnostic claim to have pre-existed in heaven with God, but only Paul's and John's Jesuses are said to pre-exist,)
As I mentioned before....
There is that which refers to The Word which was before He was manifested in the flesh.
There is that which refers to Jesus while he was man on the earth
There is that which refers to a risen King and Lord where the glory that He had as God was given back to Him.
So... to quote 17 or more about Jesus while he was man on the earth would be like quoting me as a child and say "You were never a father or a grown man."
John 8:58 is a direct reference that Jesus was God... "Before Abraham was, I AM" - signifying that He was God thus the response of the people was "59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
Whether you want to apply that to gnosticism, is your prerogative.
The Trinity doctrine says the one God is three persons and one substance. That's entirely different to saying that the Father, Son and Ghost are the board of the God Corporation, or three of the shareholders, or a partnership of three. It entails the proposition that each of the persons is 100% of God while remaining distinct.
Please quote me the part of the NT which says that.
I'm not sure that they are different in definition.
I am three persons... spirit, soul and body yet one substance man. Each part of me is 100% me yet quite distinct.
Indeed a messiah to come is mentioned a number of times.
But that overlooks the fact that Jesus doesn't qualify as a Jewish messiah, since a Jewish messiah is a civil or military or religious leader who' s anointed by the Jewish priesthood. If he's a Christian messiah, that's a matter for Christians, but he's not the messiah of the Tanakh.
I disagree as would the Jewish writers of the NT who, IMV, would have a good understanding of the qualification. It is God that anoints and calls. It was the Father that called and the Holy Spirit that anointed Jesus.
The book of Hebrews said it well " If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?"
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/psalms/110-4.html
You are applying a Levitical standard to a different order... which doesn't qualify your statement
Where in the Tanakh does it say that an adopted son is literally a descendant of his adopting father?
Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Deut 14:2 for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.
In Judges 11:1-2, Jephthah is described as being the son of Gilead and a harlot, who was driven out of his hometown by his half brothers so as to deny his inheritance. To gain an inheritance, his father would have needed to adopt him.
The
original and current Jewish definition of a born Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Even though the Torah forbids a Jewish woman to marry a Gentile man, if she does, her children will still be Jewish.
Who is a Jew, according to the Torah?
If that is the case, then David doesn't quality to be in the line of the Messiah because his grandmother Ruth was a Moabite which gives the understanding that she was "adopted" into the lineage since it specifically says that the Messiah comes from the line of David.
And which of the two fake genealogies do you say is the real one, and why?
Point of order... you haven't established that they are fake and thus your question becomes irrelevant.
And why does Mark's author never mention Jesus' birth or name his parents, and also have Jesus insist that the messiah doesn't have to be descended from David?
Why did he need to? Apparently it wasn't an issue. Not all of them mentioned tithing... does it mean it wasn't done or didn't agree? They don't all mention "beloved son" -- does that mean they didn't all agree? There were some things that simply wasn't the point of the gospel that was written
It's not a trap question ─ what test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not? And it would be odd to assert that something is true without having a clear meaning of 'true' in mind, wouldn't it? Otherwise, 'agreeable' or 'appealing' or 'someone said' would be more accurate words than 'true', no?
True!
First and foremost, it is the veracity of the what is written. Think of it this way:
When I was younger and played basketball, someone would shoot from the three point line a swish it and say "I'm good!". We would say "That was luck" and throw it back to him. When he did again we would say "Even a broken clock is right two times a day". When he sunk the third, we stopped talking. His statement had veracity.
Looking at was is written has veracity.
Looking at the prediction of Jesus Christ has veracity.
Applying the Science of Probability to the Scriptures The probability of Jesus just fulfilling 8 prophetic utterances are 1in 1017 or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. That’s one in one hundred quadrillion! He fulfilled more that 8.
Thus, the bedrock of our faith is built upon the veracity of the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
