• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus say he was God???

look3467

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.

That's just not remotely what Hosea is talking about! :confused:
Perhaps this bit of information might help to understand many of the symbolic statements made and that is....in order for Christ to redeem the world as it was, He had to become everything that is against God in order to win the world for God.

Did Jesus not pay the price? Was it not in the form of punishment that would have been ours?
Were not the proud rulers also not spoken for on the cross when Jesus said "Father forgive them for they no not what they do"?

That day came and gone at the cross!

Death was conquered not by a man, but by God as a man.

If you keep that in mind when you read and study your bible you will see it as never before. A deeper spiritual understandings of the works of God, rather than of man's.

Blessings, AJ
 

look3467

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Out of curiosity, where does it say anywhere that Mary was a descendant of David?

Matthew Henery’s Bible Commentary

…“the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke”…

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,


Mary being a descendent of Heli.

Prophecy points to a virgin birth which can only happen without the participation of human male partner.
The following verse states “her seed”, or rather from Mary’s linage.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

“A virgin shall conceive”…

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The visitation:

Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And not to give the notion that Mary was the “mother of God”, Jesus addressed her as women.

Joh 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Hope that helps.

Blessings, AJ
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,


Mary being a descendent of Heli.
Says who? The genealogy of Mary isn't recorded anywhere that we know of... That guy can say whatever he wants; there's no way to check his facts. There's not even any proof that such a person as Mary or Joseph existed.
 

look3467

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Very simple deduction....that is...if one wants to believe in the works of God being accomplished as prophesied.

Otherwise......well, there's everything else one can believe in....or not.

Blessings, AJ
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Very simple deduction....that is...if one wants to believe in the works of God being accomplished as prophesied.

Otherwise......well, there's everything else one can believe in....or not.

Blessings, AJ

So, you're telling me I have to assume the Bible's true in order to believe any of these "facts"? All of that information is 100% completely useless if it can't be proven independently. For example, existing copies (proven not to be forgeries) of Mary's, Joseph's and Jesus' birth records and genealogy. I see no reason to accept the word of the Gospel authors on face value.
 
Last edited:

BornAgain

Active Member
That is incorrect. In biblical Hebrew "arche" always refers to "beginning". This is the term used in Revelation 3:14.
Why are you translating it in biblical Hebrew when it was written in Koine Greek?

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

Lk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues, and the rulers/ARCHE, and the authorities, be not anxious how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers/ARCHE, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work,
 

BornAgain

Active Member
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".
In Septuagint or the LXX the word “FIRSTBORN” in Exodus 4:22-23 were translated the same way as the one in Colossians 1:15 “PROTOTOKOS”.

You have to remember, during Christ earthly ministry, and Paul’s, and the other apostles’ ministries, they were using the Septuagint or the LXX and NOT the Hebrew version you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Absolutely 100%. Are they more powerful than the "god of the gods"? Absolutely not. They are simply beings called "Elohim".

The use of the word "god" in English is a slippery semantic. The word "Elohim" in the Hebrew does not change definition, in fact, that's why "the god of the gods" has an article generally, THE god, when referring to him, to differentiate.

(Note: Some have said that "Elohim" can refer to human judges such as in the KJV-tradition, but this is not necessarily the case and disputable, but it can in fact refer to Human souls as well).

Even in the NT, Satan is called "the god of this age".

And for the record, the name is more or less "I shall be", the KJV-tradition of "I am" is a bit misleading since the word Ehyeh is not immediate present tense. So that kinda shoots down the common abuse of John 8:58 right there too.
Well I never would have thunk it. Is this true of Judaism at large. In what way is it non-theistic then? There is not much argument with a belief so I will leave you to it. I will add that there is a law in philosophy that says to never multiply causes without necessity. Of what need or role are for other God's?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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.
Have I not already addressed this in detail?

Since it did not seem to phase you let me give links instead that explain this very easily.
The Genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ

As I said the Jews had every motivation for attacking ancestry if any flaw was discovered and they were obsessive about genealogies especially concerning David because they expected the messiah through that line. Not one sentence anywhere records their challenging Christ's lineage.



ADAM (1)
"The Son of God" and The First Adam
SETH (2)
ENOS (3)
CAINAN (4)
MAHALEEL (5)
JARED (6)
ENOCH (7)
METHUSALEH (8)
LAMECH (9)
NOAH (10)
SHEM (11)
ARPHAXAD (12)
CAINAN (13)
SALA (14)
EBER (15)
PELEG (16)
RAGAU (17)
SARUCH (18)
NAHOR (19)
TERAH (20)
(1) ABRAHAM (21)
(2) ISAAC (22)
(3) JACOB (23)
(4) JUDA (24)
m. Tamar ---> Zera
(Matthew 1:3)
(5) PHAREZ (25)
(6) ESROM (26)
(7) ARAM (27)
(8) AMMINADAB (28)
(9) NAASON (29)
(10) SALMON (30)
m. Rachab (Sala: Luke 3:32)
(11) BOAZ (31)
m. Ruth
(12) OBED (32)
(13) JESSE (33)
(14) DAVID (34)
m. Bathsheba (Luke 3:31) (1) SOLOMON


Matthew 1:6
NATHAN (35)​


(2 Sam.5.14)​


(2) REHOBOAM (3) ABIA
MATTATHA (36)​


(4) ASA​

MENAN (37)​

(5) JOSOPHAT​


OMRI
MELEA (38)​




|
ELIAKIM (39)​




AHAB m. Jezebel |
JONAN (40)​


(6) JORAM​


m. Athaliah
JOSEPH (41)​



(Ahaziah)


(Joash) (Amaziah)
JUDAH (42)​



SIMEON (43)​


LEVI (44)​

(7) OZIAS​

MATTHAT (45)​

(8) JOATHAM​

JORIM (46)​

(9) ACHAZ​

ELIEZER (47)​

(10) EZEKIAS​

JOSE (48)​



(11) MANASSES
ER (49)​


(12) AMON​

ELMODAM (50)​

(13) JOSIAS​

COSAM (51)​


(14) JEHOIKIM


[SIZE=-1](who had brothers, Matthew 1:11)[/SIZE]
ADDI (52)​



MELCHI (53)​

(1) JECHONIAS (55) m. --->
(2) SALATHIEL (56) [SIZE=-1]Widowed daughter [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]husband deceased[/SIZE]
NERI (54)​


< ------​

[SIZE=-1](Evidently Salathiel died childless and Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to Deut. 25,5,6) [/SIZE]
wife m. PEDAIAH
[SIZE=-1](Quite legally according to the Mosaic law, Pedaiah's name does not appear as the father of Zerubbabel in either Matthew or Luke.) [/SIZE]
(3) ZERUBBABEL (57)
(1 Chr. 3:19)
daughter


SHELOMITH --> m RHESA (58) (4) ABIUD
JOANNA (59)​




(5) ELIAKIM
JUDA (60)​



JOSEPH (61)​



(6) AZOR
SEMEI (62)​




MATTATHIAS (63)(7) SADOC
MAATH (64)​




(8) ACHIM
NAGGE (65)​



ESLI (66)​


NAHUM (67)​

(9) ELIUD​

AMOS (68)​



MATTATHIAS (69)(10) ELEAZER
JOSEPH (70)​



JANNA (71)​



(11) MATTHAN
MELCHI (72)​



LEVI (73)​


MATTHAT (74)​

(12) JACOB​

HELI (75)​

(13) JOSEPH m. MARY (76)
[SIZE=+1](14) JESUS (77) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] The Son of God and the Last Adam[/SIZE]
 

BornAgain

Active Member
PAGE 751-b 8-5-13
But in Colossians 1:15, the term firstborn is translated from the Greek "pr&#333;totokos" 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 [pr&#333;totokos], 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 (pr&#333;totokos), and it is used in the same context to refer to something that happened to Christ FIRST.

A) I DID read all of the associated verses
B) I was NOT mistaken, YOU WERE (as I just pointed out).
Your &#8220;FIRSTBORN&#8221; interpretation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the &#8220;FIRST CREATION&#8221; of God does not exist in the bible. You used the Hebrew version but you disregard Genesis 1:1-2.

Firstborn in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and pre-eminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born.

The five passages in the N.T. relating to the Lord Jesus Christ could be set forth chronologically thus:

Col. 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the &#8220;FIRSTBORN&#8221; before all creation and that He Himself produced creation [the genitive case being objective, as verse 16 makes clear]

Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5, in reference to HIS resurrection.

Romans 8:29, His position in relationship to the Church.

Hebrews 1:6, His Second Advent.

In Hebrews 12:23, members of the Church were &#8220;THE FIRSTBORN&#8221;

&#8220;FIRSTBORN&#8221; is used occasionally of SUPERIORITY OF POSITION in the O.T.,; see Exodus 4:22, Deut. 21:16-17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of the &#8220;FIRSTBORN&#8221; to one born subsequently to the first child.

Among the Israelites the first-born son possessed special privileges. He succeeded his father as the head of the house and received as his share of the inheritance a double portion. Israel was the Lord's firstborn (Exod 4:22) and was thus entitled to special privileges, as compared with other peoples.
 

captainbryce

Active Member
Why are you translating it in biblical Hebrew when it was written in Koine Greek?
I mistyped. The bible was written in BOTH. As far as the text in question goes, I obviously meant Greek, not Hebrew.

Ruler/Arche and Beginning/Arche both has the same Greek meaning.
But I just demonstrated that they in fact don't! :confused:

Lk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues, and the rulers/ARCHE, and the authorities, be not anxious how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers/ARCHE, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work,
The word used in both of these scriptures is not "arche" it is "archais" (principalities). Depending on the context, it could also be used as "beginning", although this is only ever done ONCE throughout the entire bible (Hebrews 1:10). But that still misses the point that when the word arche is used, it is ALWAYS translated as "beginning", and never as "ruler/rulers", because it is not synonymous with archon or archais in that form.
 

captainbryce

Active Member
In Septuagint or the LXX the word “FIRSTBORN” in Exodus 4:22-23 were translated the same way as the one in Colossians 1:15 “PROTOTOKOS”.
That doesn't change the fact that the context of the word used in both of those passages is different.

You have to remember, during Christ earthly ministry, and Paul’s, and the other apostles’ ministries, they were using the Septuagint or the LXX and NOT the Hebrew version you are talking about.
I don't know what you're talking about. I am using a Hebrew interlinear bible! The words in this case translated as "firstborn" are the same. But the context of the term tells us whether it is literal or figurative, so I don't see how this point is relevant. :confused:
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
That's wonderful... Use the fictional book to support the fictional story... Where's the real evidence?
Come on man. You kind of need to open the Bible to evaluate the Bible. Try it sometime. The point is the evidence we have (all of it) justifies Christ's genealogy. You are making an argument from silence. Evidence? I am the only one of us to bother giving a genealogy at all.
 

BornAgain

Active Member
PAGE 752-A 8-5-13
According to the Midrash Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 &#8220;There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.&#8221;

IOW, BEFORE THE CREATION OR GENESIS 1:1-2 THERE WAS NO CREATION and ACCORDING TO Col 1:16 &#8220;For by him were all things created&#8221; 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!
TIME IS RELEVANT TO THE &#8220;BEGINNING&#8221;. TIME NOT RELEVANT BEFORE THE &#8220;BEGINNING&#8221; ETERNITY=NO TIME LIMIT.

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.

GOD CREATED EVERYTHING OUT OF NOTHING [EX NIHILO]

Remember in Genesis, &#8220;God said&#8221;

NO HAMMER, NAILS, OR ANYTHING IN GENESIS. EX NIHILO!
 

ignition

Active Member
Come on man. You kind of need to open the Bible to evaluate the Bible. Try it sometime. The point is the evidence we have (all of it) justifies Christ's genealogy. You are making an argument from silence. Evidence? I am the only one of us to bother giving a genealogy at all.
What evidence do you have though that the Bible is God's word?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What evidence do you have though that the Bible is God's word?
Why are you asking that? That is a huge and independent subject. The issue here is Hebrew accuracy concerning genealogies and their expertise in that regard is legendary. To answer you question in just a few words: prophecy, textual accuracy light years above any work of any kind in ancient history, 25,000 historical corroborations, multiple attestation, and explanatory scope and power. If you want a paper from one of if not the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history see this link.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

That paper is legendary and serves as a sort of Gospel reliability evaluation techniques 101.
 

ignition

Active Member
Why are you asking that? That is a huge and independent subject. The issue here is Hebrew accuracy concerning genealogies and their expertise in that regard is legendary. To answer you question in just a few words: prophecy, textual accuracy light years above any work of any kind in ancient history, 25,000 historical corroborations, multiple attestation, and explanatory scope and power. If you want a paper from one of if not the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history see this link.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

That paper is legendary and serves as a sort of Gospel reliability evaluation techniques 101.
But that's absolute rubbish, that's no evidence for the bible. It has no historical or scientific accuracy whatsoever.
 
Top