Jesus is not God

[IndigoChild5559]

What's significant is the covenant and sacrifice:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease
Daniel 9:27

For this is my blood of the new testament[diatheke], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26:28

diatheke =covenant
The blood of the old covenant was symbolic of the practice and consent of the people. Exodus 24:6-8

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13

So you think that because the duration of the Babylonian exile lasted 70 years, that all the weeks will be 100 years? That's a mighty big assumption.

You are also assuming that the cessation of sacrifice refers to the destruction of the first temple. What if it refers to the second temple?

Why are you drawing attention to the word diatheke??? That word does not exist in the Tanakh. It is a Greek word. The Tanakh was not written in Greek.

And BTW, your references to the Christian scriptures mean nothing to me. You might as well quote from the Book of Mormon or the Quran.

 

[Ebionite]

So you think that because the duration of the Babylonian exile lasted 70 years, that all the weeks will be 100 years? That's a mighty big assumption.

Why would I think that? Your assumption, not mine.

You are also assuming that the cessation of sacrifice refers to the destruction of the first temple.

No, I'm not.

Why are you drawing attention to the word diatheke???

Because in the Bible it's ambiguous, and one meaning associates with the Mosaic covenant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why would I think that? Your assumption, not mine.


No, I'm not.


Because in the Bible it's ambiguous, and one meaning associates with the Mosaic covenant.

LIsten, although I'm fairly intuitive, I really can't read minds. I've done my best and have apparently failed miserably. The onus is back on you. You have obviously done a very poor job representing what you think. For example, When I asked you about your figuring the timing of the weeks, you were the one that gave a verse as your explanation. iow you left me to try to figure out how that verse answered my question. Well, now you are saying it didn't. That tells me two things.
1. That you give replies that are unrelated to my questions -- very poor judgment on your part, it shows poor ability as an interlocutor.
2. That you don't know how to answer a question. This tells me that I'm probably either going to get bored with you very quickly if I accept the fact that I'm not going to get answer from you, or that I'm going to pull my hair out trying to wring answers out of you (and in the end find it not worth it).

AT THIS PONT the only way you can save this conversation is to state very succinctly AND CLEARLY what it is that you DO believe. No games, no omissions.

 

[Ebionite]

LIsten, although I'm fairly intuitive, I really can't read minds. I've done my best and have apparently failed miserably. The onus is back on you.

Sometimes people tell me that I'm too terse, but it's just a strategy to avoid wasting time with people who don't have a similar approach to the problem.

AT THIS PONT the only way you can save this conversation is to state very succinctly AND CLEARLY what it is that you DO believe. No games, no omissions.

What I believe isn't important, but I will say that I have no faith in Pauline Christianity. The issue that I'm trying to focus on is how Pauline Christianity highlights the connection between blood sacrifice and Satanism by acting as an adverse witness.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sometimes people tell me that I'm too terse, but it's just a strategy to avoid wasting time with people who don't have a similar approach to the problem.


What I believe isn't important, but I will say that I have no faith in Pauline Christianity. The issue that I'm trying to focus on is how Pauline Christianity highlights the connection between blood sacrifice and Satanism by acting as an adverse witness.

That you reject the teachings of Paul is interesting. I had already figured out that you were outside the box of Christianity.

Unfortunately, I still have no clue what you DO believe. And honestly, it IS important because without that framework I will continue to misunderstand things that you say.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how Pauline Christianity highlights the connection between blood sacrifice and Satanism by acting as an adverse witness." I can't imagine what Satanism has to do with any of this.

I look forward to your response.

 

[Ebionite]

Unfortunately, I still have no clue what you DO believe. And honestly, it IS important because without that framework I will continue to misunderstand things that you say.

The reason why I don't talk about my beliefs is because it's only religion, and I'm convinced that the only viable path to knowledge involves the application of reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how Pauline Christianity highlights the connection between blood sacrifice and Satanism by acting as an adverse witness." I can't imagine what Satanism has to do with any of this.

Starting with "Jesus is not God", I get to the relationship between Elohim and YHWH and how prophets fit into that. The name of Jesus is substituted for the name of YHWH in one or two places in the Bible, which points to Paul as an adverse witness. Paul's test under James and what he said while being tried for his involvement in the resulting riot gives more context for the difference between Paul's focus on faith and James' more works based approach. Paul's doctrine of faith primarily concerns sacrifice, which connects to this thread:

Where's the devil?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The reason why I don't talk about my beliefs is because it's only religion, and I'm convinced that the only viable path to knowledge involves the application of reason.


Starting with "Jesus is not God", I get to the relationship between Elohim and YHWH and how prophets fit into that. The name of Jesus is substituted for the name of YHWH in one or two places in the Bible, which points to Paul as an adverse witness. Paul's test under James and what he said while being tried for his involvement in the resulting riot gives more context for the difference between Paul's focus on faith and James' more works based approach. Paul's doctrine of faith primarily concerns sacrifice, which connects to this thread:

Where's the devil?

In my last posts, I acknowledged that I understood you didn't fall within the box of Christianity. In this post I will acknowledge that you are still highly influenced by that religion in so many small ways -- I don't know if you are aware of that or not.

One of the most obvious Christian influences in your own theology is your idea of Satan was an archangel in heaven who went to war with God and was cast out along with a third of the angels. You get this from the Revelation verse that you quoted. It is a uniquely Christian idea. It does not exist in Judaism.

In Judaism, HaSatan is an employee of God. He is a sort of accuser, a prosecutor. We see him best at work in the book of Job, which you also referenced. You will notice that in the book of Job, HaSatan could do nothing except that which God allowed.

At any rate, getting back to our discussion...

You still haven't told me what this relationship between Elohim and he who is named the tetragrammaton is. You certainly make it seem that they are two separate persons. Do you believe in two gods? Are you a polytheist? Is El Shaddai a third god? What of the other names for God? Are they other gods? I'm not saying this in a mocking tone. I'm genuinely curious what you actually believe.

As for the relationship between James and Paul, and the essence of their respective theologies, I don't have a dog in the race. I leave that to Christians to argue about. It's not that I haven't studied it. It's that it doesn't really matter to me as a Jew.

 

[Ebionite]

One of the most obvious Christian influences in your own theology is your idea of Satan was an archangel in heaven who went to war with God and was cast out along with a third of the angels. You get this from the Revelation verse that you quoted. It is a uniquely Christian idea. It does not exist in Judaism.

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
YHWH hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
Isaiah 14:4-5

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:12

In Judaism, HaSatan is an employee of God.

And again the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1

HaSatan could do nothing except that which God allowed.

And YHWH said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth Elohim, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 2:3

You still haven't told me what this relationship between Elohim and he who is named the tetragrammaton is.

One description of the relationship can be found in Exodus 19-20

So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
And Elohim spake all these words, saying,
I am YHWH Elahi, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exodus19:25-20-2

A similar description is found in Exodus 3.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
YHWH hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
Isaiah 14:4-5

And so?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:12

You are reading from a Christian translation, and the Christian versions are flawed. "Lucifer" is simply a Latin translation of הֵילֵל which means Morning Star. Morning Star is one of the names of the King of Babylon. It is not a name of HaSatan.

And again the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24:1

And so?

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1

This is from the Christian scriptures. I have already stated that your idea agrees with the Christian one.

And YHWH said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth Elohim, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 2:3

The depiction of HaSatan in the book of Job is a perfect example of the Jewish understanding of Satan as the accuser who is the employee of God who can do nothing without God's permission. Satan goes up to heaven and when God brags about Job, Satan accuses him. In fact Satan goes so far as to say that if God will allow him to torment Job, Job will crack under pressure. You'll notice that Satan can't do this until God gives him permission to do so (with certain restrictions).

One description of the relationship can be found in Exodus 19-20

So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
And Elohim spake all these words, saying,
I am YHWH Elahi, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exodus19:25-20-2

A similar description is found in Exodus 3.

Your verse from Exodus pretty much meets my understanding that Elohim and the God who goes by the name that is the tetragrammaton are one and the same.

btw, that's Eloheikha, not Elahi. JFYI

However, that doesnt tell me your explicit opinion. You could have different interpretation of those verses.

Is there some reason you can't just come out and say, I believe X? Why are you making such a big deal about this? It's like pulling teeth with you.

 

[Ebionite]

And so?

The fall isn't just about a single character.

You are reading from a Christian translation, and the Christian versions are flawed. "Lucifer" is simply a Latin translation of הֵילֵל which means Morning Star. Morning Star is one of the names of the King of Babylon. It is not a name of HaSatan.

The name of Lucifer isn't relevant to the fact the heylel ben shachar acted as an adversary to the nations by weakening them.

And so?

Both verses describe the numbering of Israel.

This is from the Christian scriptures.

No, both verses are from The Tanak.

The depiction of HaSatan in the book of Job is a perfect example of the Jewish understanding of Satan as the accuser who is the employee of God who can do nothing without God's permission.

It was YHWH who said that Job was within Satan's power, not Elohim.
Also Elohim sometimes acts as an adversary eg Numbers 22:22.

btw, that's Eloheikha, not Elahi. JFYI

It's still not Elohim.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The fall isn't just about a single character.


The name of Lucifer isn't relevant to the fact the heylel ben shachar acted as an adversary to the nations by weakening them.


Both verses describe the numbering of Israel.


No, both verses are from The Tanak.


It was YHWH who said that Job was within Satan's power, not Elohim.
Also Elohim sometimes acts as an adversary eg Numbers 22:22.

It's still not Elohim.

Hold on there. My post remarked that you were showing influences of Christian doctrine, such as thinking that Morning Star was Satan. All your responses here have nothing to do with the things I've said. Are you even following the discussion? You keep going off on tangents.

I keep asking you to state , "I believe X" with regards to the relationship between Elohim and the tetragrammaton. I guess you are not going to give me an answer. I'm sick of waiting for one.

I wish you well.

 

[Ebionite]

Hold on there. My post remarked that you were showing influences of Christian doctrine, such as thinking that Morning Star was Satan.

OK, but it's not necessarily wrong because of that.

All your responses here have nothing to do with the things I've said.

That's patently false. You said "This is from the Christian scriptures" in reference to English translations of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which are obviously from the Tanak, as in my previous response to you.

I keep asking you to state , "I believe X" with regards to the relationship between Elohim and the tetragrammaton. I guess you are not going to give me an answer. I'm sick of waiting for one.

I think that you're just looking for a religious straw man here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, but it's not necessarily wrong because of that.

True. But as someone who thinks outside the box, I would think that you would want to do your due diligence and investigate the Jewish understanding of who HaSatan is, and how we interpret these other passages, such as the Morning Star passage. It just gives you a richer, fuller set of knowledge from which to draw your conclusions.

That's patently false. You said "This is from the Christian scriptures" in reference to English translations of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which are obviously from the Tanak, as in my previous response to you.

You use the quotes from the Tanakh to bolster Christian ideas, interpreting these passages in unusual ways.

I think that you're just looking for a religious straw man here.

And I think you are being secretive, and I have no patience for it. If you don't want to talk, then fine, we don't have to talk.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I don't think you are getting it.
John 10:34

Revelation 20:11-15 is showing us the great day of judgement. The dead, small and great are standing before God. So who is sitting on the throne? It says in 2 Corinthians 5:10 that we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Messiah. Revelation 21:5-7 has the one sitting on the throne saying in verse 6 that he is the Alpha and Omega, and in verse 7 that he is God. Now look at Revelation 22:12-13 and see who the Alpha and Omega is. (Revelation 22:20)

 

[Jane Boswell]

I think that the "Jesus as God" idea came out of the folly of what became the early Catholic Church.
I'm not going to dig all the references out. We all claim to be out of diapers, so you can do it yourself.

A reliable artifact of religious kitsch was the now-discontinued Jesus Swatch watch: it featured a central Christ with 12 revolving disciples, indiglo lit.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A reliable artifact of religious kitsch was the now-discontinued Jesus Swatch watch: it featured a central Christ with 12 revolving disciples, indiglo lit.

Jesus statement is the Gospel of John 'before Abraham was I AM' seems to have a big contrast
where before Abraham came in to being, Abraham was born (genesthai) with Jesus being I AM , I existed (eigo eimi)

That is fitting of being divine. angels, men and other creatures comes into existence
where God existed always

Jesus could have said before Abraham came into being I came into being..... but he didnt'

 

[Jane Boswell]

Jesus could have said before Abraham came into being I came into being..... but he didnt'

Why announce the obvious to feeble masses, unless it was "stealth martyrdom".

 

[steveb1]

I don't intend to debate on this. What I state is my belief, and others are welcome to theirs, and I will defend their right to their beliefs.

In the OT, when Moses first encounters God, he is told that he can not look upon God and live. Later on, God allows Moses to see him and he comes out all bleached.

Yes, I know that in the NT Jesus says that "I and the Father are one", but I think that means, in context, that the Father and he agree. If Jesus were God, then no one could have looked at him, and people DID look at him, even after the resurrection.

I think that the "Jesus as God" idea came out of the folly of what became the early Catholic Church.

I'm not going to dig all the references out. We all claim to be out of diapers, so you can do it yourself.

The NT does not claim that Jesus is God - not even in John's Gospel. It's more a case of Jesus (in Paul, some of the other Epistle authors, and John) being seen as a pre-existent, archangelic figure, who was made "the Son" by his taking on a Davidic/Jewish body, emptying himself, and assuming the form of a servant, in order to be tormented, killed, buried - and then raised back up again to his original place standing by the Father's side. Thus, Jesus was considered to be a pre=existent "Son of Man" - with whom all the Synoptic Gospel identify their Jesus - whom the Powers and Principalities killed, but whom God, through resurrection, ultimately vindicated.

Trinitarians make the exegetical error of thinking that John claims that Jesus is God. On the contrary, John is at pains to show that the Word incarnate in Jesus's human nature acted as "a finger pointing to the moon [God]" - without claiming to be God:

The Father and I are one / This a claim made by all divine union mystics, who all feel that they are in communion and union with God.

I return to the glory I had with the Father before the world was made / This is a claim not to deity, but rather to pre-existence, which, as the angelic Son of Man, Jesus could authentically claim.

Before Abraham was, I am / Typical mystical statement of an immediate experience of God's own "Timeless Now" - and obviously another claim not to deity, but to pre-existence.

I am a man who has heard, and obeys, God's word / A man can hear and obey God's Word, but God cannot hear and obey his own word.

Finally, Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead in John 17:3: You, Father, are the ONLY true God.

Any attempt to make the monotheistic Jesus, and the first monotheistic Jews who believed in him, into "God", misrepresents Jesus, Judaism, and the Oneness of the biblical deity, and imports pagan elements into an originally monotheistic christology.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then why did they want to stone him for blasphemy after he said "I and my Father are one" if he just meant "Me and dad agree?" And now?

Read the rest of the context, please. Jesus explained it.

And the following can clarify it further.....

In’ and ‘One’
The Greek word εν (en) simply means in. However, it has been translated as in, on, among, one, and in union with.
It’s important to understand how this small word should be properly translated, especially when it’s being used in the Bible to describe the relationship between God, Jesus, and Jesus’ faithful disciples.

Also notice that adding an apostrophe (or an ‘h’) to the word (‘εν – hen), slightly changes its meaning.

We find an example of its use at John 10:30, which basically says, ‘The father and I are one.’
And though ‘hen’ is about the same word as ‘en’ (just a slight change in tense), you’ll find that it has been translated (in the New American Standard Bible, for example) as one (282 times), agreement (1), alike (1), alone (3), common (1), detail (1), first (9), individual (2), individually (1), lone (1), man (1), nothing (1), one another (1), one man (2), one thing (5), one (2), person (1), single (1), smallest (1), someone (2), unity (1).

Yes, such a wide variety of translating is strange, but not uncommon. For you’ll find translators doing the same thing to many other Bible words, usually in an attempt to slant the meanings toward their own religious conclusions.

However, at John 10:30, was Jesus really saying that he was one of three personalities of God, as many teach?
Well, notice how Jesus later used the same word (εν) when describing his relationship with his disciples (at John 14:20):
‘εγω εν τω πατρι μου και υμεις εν εμοι καγω εν υμιν,’
or,
‘In that the day you will know that I in (εν) the Father of me, and you in (εν) me, and I in (εν) you.’

So if what Jesus said at John 10:30 meant that he is the same person as (or is another personality that is part of) his Father, then what he said as recorded at John 14:20 would mean that all of Jesus’ followers will become the same person as him and his Father… thus we would all become Jesus and God!
However, a more logical conclusion would be that; as Jesus and his Father are at one in mind and purpose, the righteous will join them in this perfect union.
(For more information, see the linked document, ‘Who Was Jesus?’).

From http://2001translation.com/NOTES.htm#_113

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, they had to have a reason for wanting to stone him

John 19:7