Jesus is God?

[Shermana]

That was a typo, Infinitive is what I was referring to and meant to say. There is no such thing Aorist inactive tense. You should have noted that or said something like "No such thing as Aorist Inactive". Everything else remains the same, such as how all the other verses use Genesthai, which you failed to mention anything about. Other than saying "It's infinite", telling me "You're wrong" does not back your case other than telling me that I erronouesly put "Inactive" instead of " infinitive". Want to mention something about how every other time except in two places it is in the "To become" sense? Looks like you don't. Neither does it seem that you want to mention the fact that Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh is translated as "I shall be"/I will be by numerous sources, neither does it seem you want to back your "Absolute sense" thing. Thank you.

 

[Mark2020]

Aorist Inactive (Edit: Typo: Should be Infinitive) usually implies something that WILL take place, hence a sort of "future tense".

That was a typo,...

To say "aorist infinitive usually refers to future" means you know nothing about Greek.

Go do some reading before further embarrassing yourself.

 

[Rakovsky]

quote=URAVIP2ME; In the first chapter of John in verse 49 John writes that Nathanael also believes Jesus to be the Son of God.

Correct! In verse 45; Philip found his brother Nathanael and told him that they had found the man that Moses wrote about in the book of the Law and whom the prophets wrote about, and he was the man Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth. Moses wrote about him in Deuteronomy 18: 18; and Isaiah wrote about him in Isaiah 42: 1; The Lord says, “Here is my servant, whom I strengthen--- the one I have chosen, with whom I am pleased. I have filled him with my spirit, and he will bring Justice to every Nation.”

How do you see the words about Nathanael in John 1 or the words in Isaiah 42 as showing that Nathanael or Isaiah thought that Jesus or the Messiah was God?

Isaiah 42 says that Messiah has God's spirit, but Tanakh/ Old Testament also says that God's spirit was on the prophets too, so saying that someone has God's spirit on them doesn't necessarily mean that the person is the same as God Himself.

 

[RabbiO]

How do you see the words about Nathanael in John 1 or the words in Isaiah 42 as showing that Nathanael or Isaiah thought that Jesus or the Messiah was God?

Isaiah 42 says that Messiah has God's spirit, but Tanakh/ Old Testament also says that God's spirit was on the prophets too, so saying that someone has God's spirit on them doesn't necessarily mean that the person is the same as God Himself.

Given that S-word has not logged on to the forum in almost 6 years, you may be waiting a very long time for a response.

 

[MHz]

Jesus is the Son of God.
Get a Lawyer to explain this verse and all will be made clear.

1Co:15:27:
For he hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith all things are put under him,
it is manifest that he is excepted,
which did put all things under him.

 

[SethZaddik]

I know that there are a good many christians out their who believe that those who follow the jewish religion need to be saved because they do not worship Jesus. So, quick question:

Jesus is God(YHWH). It seems to me that we are worshipping the same deity. Am I correct? Why or why not?

There actually is not a single verse that says Jesus is God.

He HAS a God, God, Our Father, his Father...God/Allah.

God doesn't have a God, Jesus does.

Do the math, it means Jesus PBUH can't possibly be God.

 

[SethZaddik]

Jesus is the Son of God.
Get a Lawyer to explain this verse and all will be made clear.

1Co:15:27:
For he hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith all things are put under him,
it is manifest that he is excepted,
which did put all things under him.

Only problem with quoting Paul is he is a false, self proclaimed ''apostle" and a false prophet.

Nothing he says has value.

 

[SethZaddik]

You are correct but the Jews deny God in Jesus and therefore have rejected God and have refused to accept the salvation offered by Him.

The law has no power to save (it only tells you what to do to be saved) but Jesus does:

Eph. 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, that no man should glory.

The Jews don't deny God they deny that Jesus was the Messiah because he didn't fulfill their prophecies and expectations, to them he failed.

Jerusalem was taken over by the same nation the Messiah was supposed to establish a Kingdom over and it doesn't have anything to do with rejecting or accepting Jesus, would have happened no matter what, Rome was too mighty.

The Jewish Messiah was and is to be FULLY human and no prophecy about him being God or His son exists.

They are not going to accept your religion because you say it is the only religion, they have their covenant and it is eternal.

 

[MHz]

Nothing he says has value.

Really?? After the blindness bit it was because he could answer those Disciples truthfully that it was lifted. A few years of preaching and then spending a couple of weeks with Peter the only disagreement they has was about which James (brother of Jesus or Apostle James was more important. After Stephen was killed all the Apostle stayed in Jerusalem and would have experienced all that is in Luke:21:12-24. After that they were also in the Nations teaching the very same thing Paul has been teaching to Jews and Gentiles.
That also means Luke was written before 70 AD as no prophecy is written in hindsight. James (the Apostle, was written after the scattering that happened in 70AD.

Jas:1:1:
James,
a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

I've heard the arguments against Paul, they don't hold water. You might as well include Peter as a false Apostle as he was saying that all Gentile food was kosher after this vision. How many Jews observe this change?? One?? Tow?? Zero???

This also happens to be the last item that was specifically for the Jews and it came 3 1/2 years after the cross and officially marked the end of the 70 week from Da:9. What Peter taught from that point on would have been identical to what Pauld and the Beloved Disciple were preaching in the Nations.

Ac:10:9-20:
On the morrow,
as they went on their journey,
and drew nigh unto the city,
Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry,
and would have eaten:
but while they made ready,
he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened,
and a certain vessel descending unto him,
as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
and wild beasts,
and creeping things,
and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him,
Rise,
Peter;
kill,
and eat.
But Peter said,
Not so,
Lord;
for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common.
This was done thrice:
and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean,
behold,
the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house,
and stood before the gate,
And called,
and asked whether Simon,
which was surnamed Peter,
were lodged there.
While Peter thought on the vision,
the Spirit said unto him,
Behold,
three men seek thee.
Arise therefore,
and get thee down,
and go with them,
doubting nothing:
for I have sent them.

 

[SethZaddik]

Really?? After the blindness bit it was because he could answer those Disciples truthfully that it was lifted. A few years of preaching and then spending a couple of weeks with Peter the only disagreement they has was about which James (brother of Jesus or Apostle James was more important. After Stephen was killed all the Apostle stayed in Jerusalem and would have experienced all that is in Luke:21:12-24. After that they were also in the Nations teaching the very same thing Paul has been teaching to Jews and Gentiles.
That also means Luke was written before 70 AD as no prophecy is written in hindsight. James (the Apostle, was written after the scattering that happened in 70AD.

Jas:1:1:
James,
a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

I've heard the arguments against Paul, they don't hold water. You might as well include Peter as a false Apostle as he was saying that all Gentile food was kosher after this vision. How many Jews observe this change?? One?? Tow?? Zero???

This also happens to be the last item that was specifically for the Jews and it came 3 1/2 years after the cross and officially marked the end of the 70 week from Da:9. What Peter taught from that point on would have been identical to what Pauld and the Beloved Disciple were preaching in the Nations.

Ac:10:9-20:
On the morrow,
as they went on their journey,
and drew nigh unto the city,
Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry,
and would have eaten:
but while they made ready,
he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened,
and a certain vessel descending unto him,
as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
and wild beasts,
and creeping things,
and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him,
Rise,
Peter;
kill,
and eat.
But Peter said,
Not so,
Lord;
for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common.
This was done thrice:
and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean,
behold,
the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house,
and stood before the gate,
And called,
and asked whether Simon,
which was surnamed Peter,
were lodged there.
While Peter thought on the vision,
the Spirit said unto him,
Behold,
three men seek thee.
Arise therefore,
and get thee down,
and go with them,
doubting nothing:
for I have sent them.

Yes, REALLY, Paul was NOT an Apostle, 12 being the max and fulfilled in Matthias, Asia as A WHOLE, rejected him and as Acts says he was ''banned from preaching in Asia by the Holy Spirit."

Revelation was written ONLY to Asia, confirms 12 IS max# of "Apostles of the Lamb."

Congratulates the Ephesians for rejecting false apostles.

James to Paul:"Senseless man" ie fool "Do you need me to tell you, faith without works is DEAD."?

 

[SethZaddik]

Really?? After the blindness bit it was because he could answer those Disciples truthfully that it was lifted. A few years of preaching and then spending a couple of weeks with Peter the only disagreement they has was about which James (brother of Jesus or Apostle James was more important. After Stephen was killed all the Apostle stayed in Jerusalem and would have experienced all that is in Luke:21:12-24. After that they were also in the Nations teaching the very same thing Paul has been teaching to Jews and Gentiles.
That also means Luke was written before 70 AD as no prophecy is written in hindsight. James (the Apostle, was written after the scattering that happened in 70AD.

Jas:1:1:
James,
a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

I've heard the arguments against Paul, they don't hold water. You might as well include Peter as a false Apostle as he was saying that all Gentile food was kosher after this vision. How many Jews observe this change?? One?? Tow?? Zero???

This also happens to be the last item that was specifically for the Jews and it came 3 1/2 years after the cross and officially marked the end of the 70 week from Da:9. What Peter taught from that point on would have been identical to what Pauld and the Beloved Disciple were preaching in the Nations.

Ac:10:9-20:
On the morrow,
as they went on their journey,
and drew nigh unto the city,
Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry,
and would have eaten:
but while they made ready,
he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened,
and a certain vessel descending unto him,
as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
and wild beasts,
and creeping things,
and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him,
Rise,
Peter;
kill,
and eat.
But Peter said,
Not so,
Lord;
for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common.
This was done thrice:
and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean,
behold,
the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house,
and stood before the gate,
And called,
and asked whether Simon,
which was surnamed Peter,
were lodged there.
While Peter thought on the vision,
the Spirit said unto him,
Behold,
three men seek thee.
Arise therefore,
and get thee down,
and go with them,
doubting nothing:
for I have sent them.

I mean, you really CAN'T believe that a guy who says such gems as "The law is a curse" "dead" and because it was inferior due to being "ordained by angels"?

Show me where the Torah, the Law, was said to be anything other than given to Moses by God, anything that justifies the baffling statement that is harshly rebuked in Jude's Epistle?

Show me a REAL, 12 Apostle, calling Paul "Apostle", only Peter mentionied him and it was as "brother" "whose writings contain things in them that are hard to understand (nonsensical)...And to beware of them as they lead "ignorant and unstable men" like Paul "to their own destruction through LAWLESSNES."

It is not just me, Jesus' PBUH whole team, even Barnabas who brought Paul in, gave him a chance, ends up leaving the cranky upstart.

2 Peter is the most cited, because it's the only mention, verse that to fundies say vouches for Paul, according to an actual Apostle.

But it is a thinly veiled polemic against Paul as are all the Catholic Epistles or general Epistles of the Apostles (not Paul).

Fundies are dishonest if they deny it. Or decieved.

 

[MHz]

Yes, REALLY, Paul was NOT an Apostle, 12 being the max and fulfilled in Matthias, Asia as A WHOLE, rejected him and as Acts says he was ''banned from preaching in Asia by the Holy Spirit."

I assume you would agree that the Book of Romans was meant just for Rome and the 7 Churches that the 7 letters were sent to was Grecia and that neither of those is 'Asia'.

In the part below it would seem like Paul was sent through some horrific times just so he would get an inflated ego from being chosen by Christ. The 4 Gospels would gave been written in flawless Greek by the 4 Scribes who wrote the Gospels. Peter would have been the witness in the Gospel of Matthew and he was there from the beginning. The Beloved Disciple is the un-named Disciple of John the Baptist that was with Andrew in John:1. That Scribe also wrote Revelations while in Patmos, Greecia. Leters sent is different that being there to heard about the era that comes before the judgment of the 7 Churches begins. The verse below is to all the people in the world and the Bible was supposed to be preached to whole planet. If you want to have Asia a being left out so others could take up that task because Paul was headed into all the Roman Empire that is noted in his travel verses.

2Co:12:5-10:
Of such an one will I glory:
yet of myself I will not glory,
but in mine infirmities.
For though I would desire to glory,
I shall not be a fool;
for I will say the truth:
but now I forbear,
lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be,
or that he heareth of me.
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations,
there was given to me a thorn in the flesh,
the messenger of Satan to buffet me,
lest I should be exalted above measure.
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice,
that it might depart from me.
And he said unto me,
My grace is sufficient for thee:
for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities,
that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities,
in reproaches,
in necessities,
in persecutions,
in distresses for Christ's sake:
for when I am weak,
then am I strong.

Re:1:7:
Behold,
he cometh with clouds;
and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him:
and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.
Even so,
Amen.

The whole NT was to be shared with everybody so something dictated to the Romans would also apply to all of Asia. The 'little horn' from Da:8 is a reference to Rome's 500 year rule and the direction in relation to Jerusalem can only be Rome.

If Paul was told to stop then he kept on preaching only it was to Gentiles directly rather than to Jews in Synagogues in Asia and other places.

Revelation was written ONLY to Asia, confirms 12 IS max# of "Apostles of the Lamb."

The 7 letters are written to Angels that are the head of those 7 churches and it is those people who will be gathered by Holy Angels and delivered to Jerusalem to become the feast that is for the birds and the animals for all their number that was lost due to them being sacrifices for sin when they were not the cause of any sin.
The 7 letters contain a description of 14 possible relationships a person can have with God. The one being threatened with 'great tribulation' is meaning they will be hell with the rest of the unrepented Gentiles on the day the 7th trump sounds.
The NT 1st law is no different that the first few points in the 10 Commandments. Having that being restricted to that portion in the map would have the rest of the planet being judged on the rest of the 10 Commandments which means feeding any hungry people. I'm pretty comfortable with that notion.

M't:13:41:
The Son of man shall send forth his angels,
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity;

Asia would be the first kingdom reclaimed after Jerusalem is in Re:11.

Lu:17:30-37:
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
In that day,
he which shall be upon the housetop,
and his stuff in the house,
let him not come down to take it away:
and he that is in the field,
let him likewise not return back.
Remember Lot's wife.
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it;
and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
I tell you,
in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken,
and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field;
the one shall be taken,
and the other left.
And they answered and said unto him,
Where,
Lord?
And he said unto them,
Wheresoever the body is,
thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Re:19:17:
And I saw an angel standing in the sun;
and he cried with a loud voice,
saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven,
Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Re:19:18:
That ye may eat the flesh of kings,
and the flesh of captains,
and the flesh of mighty men,
and the flesh of horses,
and of them that sit on them,
and the flesh of all men,
both free and bond,
both small and great.

The rest of the globe would have the sinners die on the spot.

Jer:25:26:
And all the kings of the north,
far and near,
one with another,
and all the kingdoms of the world,
which are upon the face of the earth:
and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.

Jer:25:32:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts,
Behold,
evil shall go forth from nation to nation,
and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth.
Jer:25:33:
And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth:
they shall not be lamented,
neither gathered,
nor buried;
they shall be dung upon the ground.

Congratulates the Ephesians for rejecting false apostles.

In what way exactly?

James to Paul:"Senseless man" ie fool "Do you need me to tell you, faith without works is DEAD."?

Faith that the NT 2n Law is the active one and for Jews that same thing came into effect in Acts:10 made all Gentile food as clean as the OT Laws specified. Meat eaten by a Gentile is a sin if it was killed and/or cooked as part of a religious ceremony. Fine barley flour was an OT substitute should there be no birds or animals around to be sacrificed.
The feast mentioned above is followed by all birds and animals on the planet dying. That is because of the judgment of Satan and the going to the fiery lake would include them as they do not know the difference between good and evil even in the new earth. They are able to talk to God and mankind though so there is a reward for them also.

 

[SethZaddik]

Really?? After the blindness bit it was because he could answer those Disciples truthfully that it was lifted. A few years of preaching and then spending a couple of weeks with Peter the only disagreement they has was about which James (brother of Jesus or Apostle James was more important. After Stephen was killed all the Apostle stayed in Jerusalem and would have experienced all that is in Luke:21:12-24. After that they were also in the Nations teaching the very same thing Paul has been teaching to Jews and Gentiles.
That also means Luke was written before 70 AD as no prophecy is written in hindsight. James (the Apostle, was written after the scattering that happened in 70AD.

Jas:1:1:
James,
a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

I've heard the arguments against Paul, they don't hold water. You might as well include Peter as a false Apostle as he was saying that all Gentile food was kosher after this vision. How many Jews observe this change?? One?? Tow?? Zero???

This also happens to be the last item that was specifically for the Jews and it came 3 1/2 years after the cross and officially marked the end of the 70 week from Da:9. What Peter taught from that point on would have been identical to what Pauld and the Beloved Disciple were preaching in the Nations.

Ac:10:9-20:
On the morrow,
as they went on their journey,
and drew nigh unto the city,
Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry,
and would have eaten:
but while they made ready,
he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened,
and a certain vessel descending unto him,
as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
and wild beasts,
and creeping things,
and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him,
Rise,
Peter;
kill,
and eat.
But Peter said,
Not so,
Lord;
for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common.
This was done thrice:
and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean,
behold,
the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house,
and stood before the gate,
And called,
and asked whether Simon,
which was surnamed Peter,
were lodged there.
While Peter thought on the vision,
the Spirit said unto him,
Behold,
three men seek thee.
Arise therefore,
and get thee down,
and go with them,
doubting nothing:
for I have sent them.

It doesn't matter what I think about the book of Romans, which regardless of recipient was penned in the name of a false apostle.

"Ephesus is congratulated for rejecting false apostles"

"In what way you ask?"

Via the Word, Jesus, through John, "You have tested those who said that they were Apostles and are not, and have found them to be liars."

That way, that way.

Let's talk about "Balaam" and the "doctrine of Balaam" that is a reference to Balaam regarding those who are teaching it is OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he condemns this outright because it was decided at Jerusalem and agreed upon that Paul would tell people NOT to eat idol meat.

Yet he tells them TO eat it, that it is fine as long as your spiritually weak brothers are not around (read: don't get caught).

Apparently Paul wants us to believe that Jesus PBUH and James PBUH are "spiritually weak." And the Holy Spirit whose decree it was.

Rome was the enemy. Paul worked for Rome, relies on Nero in the end to save him, where the story cuts off though we know he was not in jail and house arrest is pretty much a euphemism for free as a bird.

 

[SethZaddik]

I assume you would agree that the Book of Romans was meant just for Rome and the 7 Churches that the 7 letters were sent to was Grecia and that neither of those is 'Asia'.

In the part below it would seem like Paul was sent through some horrific times just so he would get an inflated ego from being chosen by Christ. The 4 Gospels would gave been written in flawless Greek by the 4 Scribes who wrote the Gospels. Peter would have been the witness in the Gospel of Matthew and he was there from the beginning. The Beloved Disciple is the un-named Disciple of John the Baptist that was with Andrew in John:1. That Scribe also wrote Revelations while in Patmos, Greecia. Leters sent is different that being there to heard about the era that comes before the judgment of the 7 Churches begins. The verse below is to all the people in the world and the Bible was supposed to be preached to whole planet. If you want to have Asia a being left out so others could take up that task because Paul was headed into all the Roman Empire that is noted in his travel verses.

2Co:12:5-10:
Of such an one will I glory:
yet of myself I will not glory,
but in mine infirmities.
For though I would desire to glory,
I shall not be a fool;
for I will say the truth:
but now I forbear,
lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be,
or that he heareth of me.
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations,
there was given to me a thorn in the flesh,
the messenger of Satan to buffet me,
lest I should be exalted above measure.
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice,
that it might depart from me.
And he said unto me,
My grace is sufficient for thee:
for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities,
that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities,
in reproaches,
in necessities,
in persecutions,
in distresses for Christ's sake:
for when I am weak,
then am I strong.

Re:1:7:
Behold,
he cometh with clouds;
and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him:
and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.
Even so,
Amen.

The whole NT was to be shared with everybody so something dictated to the Romans would also apply to all of Asia. The 'little horn' from Da:8 is a reference to Rome's 500 year rule and the direction in relation to Jerusalem can only be Rome.

If Paul was told to stop then he kept on preaching only it was to Gentiles directly rather than to Jews in Synagogues in Asia and other places.


The 7 letters are written to Angels that are the head of those 7 churches and it is those people who will be gathered by Holy Angels and delivered to Jerusalem to become the feast that is for the birds and the animals for all their number that was lost due to them being sacrifices for sin when they were not the cause of any sin.
The 7 letters contain a description of 14 possible relationships a person can have with God. The one being threatened with 'great tribulation' is meaning they will be hell with the rest of the unrepented Gentiles on the day the 7th trump sounds.
The NT 1st law is no different that the first few points in the 10 Commandments. Having that being restricted to that portion in the map would have the rest of the planet being judged on the rest of the 10 Commandments which means feeding any hungry people. I'm pretty comfortable with that notion.

M't:13:41:
The Son of man shall send forth his angels,
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity;

Asia would be the first kingdom reclaimed after Jerusalem is in Re:11.

Lu:17:30-37:
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
In that day,
he which shall be upon the housetop,
and his stuff in the house,
let him not come down to take it away:
and he that is in the field,
let him likewise not return back.
Remember Lot's wife.
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it;
and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
I tell you,
in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken,
and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field;
the one shall be taken,
and the other left.
And they answered and said unto him,
Where,
Lord?
And he said unto them,
Wheresoever the body is,
thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Re:19:17:
And I saw an angel standing in the sun;
and he cried with a loud voice,
saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven,
Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Re:19:18:
That ye may eat the flesh of kings,
and the flesh of captains,
and the flesh of mighty men,
and the flesh of horses,
and of them that sit on them,
and the flesh of all men,
both free and bond,
both small and great.

The rest of the globe would have the sinners die on the spot.

Jer:25:26:
And all the kings of the north,
far and near,
one with another,
and all the kingdoms of the world,
which are upon the face of the earth:
and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.

Jer:25:32:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts,
Behold,
evil shall go forth from nation to nation,
and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth.
Jer:25:33:
And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth:
they shall not be lamented,
neither gathered,
nor buried;
they shall be dung upon the ground.




In what way exactly?


Faith that the NT 2n Law is the active one and for Jews that same thing came into effect in Acts:10 made all Gentile food as clean as the OT Laws specified. Meat eaten by a Gentile is a sin if it was killed and/or cooked as part of a religious ceremony. Fine barley flour was an OT substitute should there be no birds or animals around to be sacrificed.
The feast mentioned above is followed by all birds and animals on the planet dying. That is because of the judgment of Satan and the going to the fiery lake would include them as they do not know the difference between good and evil even in the new earth. They are able to talk to God and mankind though so there is a reward for them also.

That was a long presentation of rather random quotes that addresses nothing I brought up, which can't be addressed other than to say, yes, that is what it says.

"Forbidden from preaching in Asia by the Holy Spirit." Acts regarding Paul.

"All those who are in Asia have turned from me."

Paul went to Rome because he failed in Asia. If not for Acts, which is historical fiction at best, Paul has no connection with Jerusalem other than the warnings of James, Peter and Jude.

James attacks "Faith without works."

Jude the concept invented whole cloth by Paul that the "Law was ordained by angels."

2 Peter is a thinly veiled polemic against Paul, starts off talking about false prophets and ends with talking about false prophets.

"Beloved brother" means that he is NOT an Apostle, but Peter loves him, and everyone else in the world because he is a disciple of Jesus PBUH.

His writings lead the ignorant and unstable to destruction through LAWLESSNES???

"Hard to understand???"

Or "Nonsensical"?

Doesn't really matter, it IS against Paul and whoever wrote it knew how to disguise his meaning behind feigned admiration, otherwise it would not be in the Bible.

It is not the only anti Pauline literature about him and Peter, Syria had a tradition of not sharing books with "Paul or anyone like him." And portray him as subservient and unscrupulous.

Book 8 Syriac books of Clement

 

[MJFlores]

So, quick question:
Jesus is God(YHWH). It seems to me that we are worshipping the same deity. Am I correct? Why or why not?

Quick answer: Jesus is not God.

Who is he then?
He is the Son of God - Matthew 16:16
He is the Son of Man - Matthew 8:20
He is sent by God - John 8:42
He is a man who heard the truth from God - John 8:40
He is a man approved by God - Acts 2:22
He is a man, the mediator between God and man - 1 Timothy 2:5
He died and raised to life by God - Acts 5:30

Just joined yesterday.

I have included a video to supplement why the Lord Jesus Christ isn't God. I hope you like it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I had to say this was a beautiful rebuttal. Good youtube video.

Quick answer: Jesus is not God.

Who is he then?
He is the Son of God - Matthew 16:16
He is the Son of Man - Matthew 8:20
He is sent by God - John 8:42
He is a man who heard the truth from God - John 8:40
He is a man approved by God - Acts 2:22
He is a man, the mediator between God and man - 1 Timothy 2:5
He died and raised to life by God - Acts 5:30

Just joined yesterday.

I have included a video to supplement why the Lord Jesus Christ isn't God. I hope you like it.

 

[MJFlores]

I had to say this was a beautiful rebuttal. Good youtube video.

Thank you Carlita

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Jesus is the Son of God.
Get a Lawyer to explain this verse and all will be made clear.

1Co:15:27:
For he hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith all things are put under him,
it is manifest that he is excepted,
which did put all things under him.

I am not a lawyer, but here is what I think it means.

God put all things under man's feet. (As in Genesis 1:28) But God didn't put himself under man's feet.

 

[evilsorcerer1]

Jesus is the son of god because he represented all of the 'sons of god throughout history'. But I doubt if he or his disciples or many of the people in the bible existed. If all the people in the Bible symbolized something I can explain it. If People that lived to almost 1000 were actually symbols of the 1000 year reign of Christ, Jesus could have symbolized the end of "sons of god' on the earth, that possibly the last human had chosen to come to god and now the only thing stopping the end of the world is the people who still have to be born. There is way too much symbolism in the Bible for many of those people to be real. If you read the blessing of Jacob to his sons they come in a particular order. If you reverse that order due to the fact that sons of god would actually look toward the last day for resurrection, it would make Rueben last. Now if Rueben was last he would be first to symbolize the sons of god. Jacob said he was out of control like a flood, and this meant that the first part of the bible when the flood happened was actually a symbol of the destruction of the world, and the rain will be stars, planets burned up and thrown toward the Earth. Because no one actually lived to 1000, they symbolized Christ's reign and gave other clues. But Jacob specifically said Rueben lost his birthright as first son. Since each son was not a person but represented a 120 years portion of the 1000 year reign, there were people throughout history who represented the "sons of god" as a whole. Now the order of last would go to Simeon and and Levi, who were identified as brothers and so was implied they would share their time. And before them was Judah. So these two represented the two witnesses. Judas Iscariot was called son of Simon and Simon Peter would have represented the witness from the tribe of Simeon. Because both Simon Peter and Judas Iscariot had shocking similarities. Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind me satan' and the bible stated 'and satan entered him' speaking of Judas. So one would possibly be more condemned if they believed Judas was evil because the author of Luke said "and satan entered him" over Jesus saying to Peter "get behind me". But if they were all symbols of sons of god written by an anonymous author they knew what they were talking about and were probably speaking as mocking those who blasphemed when calling what is good evil. Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. It seems that was an intentional correlation drawn between Judas throwing the money down and Judas throwing the 30 pieces of silver. But Revelations stated the two witnesses would die and rise again and after Judas Iscariot hanged himself Simon Peter went on to work in the church. So as a symbol he did. And he went out witnessing also. The two witnesses were probably Elijah and Moses because they were both on the Mount with Jesus when god called them up) or Elijah and Enoch because they never died in the Bible. But if Jesus symbolized the sons of god dying would actually been a blessing to them and Judas was doing a favor. The other witness would have been John the Baptist. He was from the tribe of Levi as was the author of Revelation (again it seems there were too many similarities for these people not to be the same person). John the Baptist was beheaded in prison and John went on to write Revelation.

 

[Muffled]

Oh really? Your definition of 'Equate" must mean something different. Also, that was what the Pharisees said. Jesus said "The Father is Greater than I', and not just in terms of authority, as the word for "Greater" is used for "Greater than" in other places. Here's the actual definition of "Equate", anyone can see from the examples that being "Equal" does mean "being the same being", as much as you'd like to think. Did G-d give you this understanding that Equal means "the exact same being"?

Strong's Greek: 2470. ???? (isos) -- equal

Matthew 21:12

So once again, you are saying you are some kind of prophet who talks to G-d directly? How do you get your understanding from G-d exactly? Can you prove this? I like when people say things about proving things and then come off with whoppers like this.


Where's your proof that your interpretation comes from G-d himself?

The subject of how to define Ego Eimi with concern to the tense-usage of "Genesthai" (usually future tense" has been well discussed already, I can go repeat what's been said by me and DP and others. As I've shown earlier, others have said "Ego Eimi" (in 2 Samuel in the Septuagint) without being thought to be G-d almighty.

Do you apply your own logic to yourself when you make claims that "I get my understandings from G-d""?

How about when someone tells me that G-d tells them things?

And yours isn't because you get your understanding from G-d? What if I believe that I get MY understanding from G-d, and think that you're getting yours from a demon?[/QUOTE]

I believe that begs the question of whether you understand what equal means.

I believe the Bible and God give me that meaning.

I believe when Jesus is speaking of equality He is speaking of essence whereas when He speaks of the Father being greater He is referring to the dichotomy presented by being in a body. Both are true.

I believe anyone can talk to God. God speaks to me and through me. I wake up in the morning I see my bedroom, there is something to understand I understand it. Seeing works with the eyes and brain understanding works directly with the brain. Of course I can prove it and have done so. I believe people who believe their own opinions are like God's word are the ones with the whoppers.

I believe context reveals the meaning.

I believe you can suppose that but not truthfully say it.

It is in my post "Experiencing God."