Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[Soapy]

Again: it's not what I believe. It's what the Bible says. Read John 1. The Word was with God and the Word was God in the beginning (before any creation). And this Word came to the world as a human - Jesus. Uncreated, preexisting creation, agent of all creation - is this a divine being or an ordinary man to you?

You are absolutely correct to say that it is not what you believe - but No! It is also not what the Bible says.

The word of God is that He would send a saviour - and now that word is in the world.

What is your ‘Word’…?

If you promise something to someone at a future time, is that not your Word that you will do it?

And when you finally present that something to that person, is that not your ‘Word’ in the flesh???

Tell me, what word did God give to mankind concerning the messiah?

Was the messiah to be God - or the servant of God (read Isaiah 42:1 and Genesis 3:15)

 

[PearlSeeker]

The word of God is that He would send a saviour - and now that word is in the world.

What is your ‘Word’…?

This is not the Word in John 1.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The word of God is that He would send a saviour

No, it doesn't. There is no prophecy that the messiah would save people from their sins. In the Tanakh, only God is Savior.

 

[Soapy]

No, it doesn't. There is no prophecy that the messiah would save people from their sins. In the Tanakh, only God is Savior.

Yes it does say that. Isaiah 42:1 is the strongest verse and it’s quoted as being spoken by almighty God.

 

[Soapy]

This is not the Word in John 1.

Yes, it is the word of God.

Trinitarians CAPITALISE and HUMANISE the word of God as a title ‘The WORD of God’.

In Revelation Jesus is seen a man on a horse who had the words ‘Word of God’ on his thigh.

This does not mean that the NAME of the Jesus is ‘Word’… but that the SYMBOLISM is that Jesus REPRESENTS ‘ALL THAT GOD TAUGHT HIM TO SAY and DO’.

What is a King’s word taught to another and carried out by another? Does that make the taught person KING because he represents and presents the WORD OF THE KING?

 

[rosends]

Yes it does say that. Isaiah 42:1 is the strongest verse and it’s quoted as being spoken by almighty God.

But that's wrong. Not only does 42 state its subject as "avdi" (my servant) and this is taken to refer to one of 3 things (each with textual support), none of which is a messianic figure, it says nothing of saving anyone from anything. It also makes the demands on the subject explicit.

 

[Soapy]

But that's wrong. Not only does 42 state its subject as "avdi" (my servant) and this is taken to refer to one of 3 things (each with textual support), none of which is a messianic figure, it says nothing of saving anyone from anything. It also makes the demands on the subject explicit.

Yes, that’s right: Jesus is the suffering servant of God… the Lamb ‘slaughtered’ … akin to the physical lamb slaughtered ceremonially in anticipation of the true lamb!

Im not a fan of quoting from extra-biblical scripture text but this one summed up better than I was going to:

• “A sacrificial lamb is a metaphorical reference to a person or animal sacrificed for the common good. The term is derived from the traditions of Abrahamic religion where a lamb is a highly valued possession.” (Wikipedia…)

It’s backed up by, as I showed you, the yearly ceremony carried out by the Jews as a symbolic prophesy of the purpose of the messiah - to die (in sacrifice - to give his life) to remove the global sin of Adam which condemned all mankind to spiritual death no matter how righteous (though sinful) a life they may have lived.

 

[rosends]

Yes, that’s right: Jesus is the suffering servant of God… the Lamb ‘slaughtered’ … akin to the physical lamb slaughtered ceremonially in anticipation of the true lamb!

That's inaccurate on so many levels.

1. the servant is explicitly equated to the Jewish nation
2. the "suffering" is a label created by the non-Jewish kings who are observing the Jews
3. the lamb that was slaughtered wasn't a sin sacrifice if it was the paschal lamb
4. things aren't sacrificed in anticipation of any other sacrifice
5. Jesus wasn't sacrificed -- he wasn't eligible and wasn't killed properly

and there's more of course.

Im not a fan of quoting from extra-biblical scripture text but this one summed up better than I was going to:

• “A sacrificial lamb is a metaphorical reference to a person or animal sacrificed for the common good. The term is derived from the traditions of Abrahamic religion where a lamb is a highly valued possession.” (Wikipedia…)

Ah baseless etymological conclusions that put the cart before the horse. The sacrificial lamb was a sacrifice of a lamb. All animals were prized (and in Egypt, sacrificing a lamb was a show of faith and resistance to Egypt). There is no "common good" in the biblical lamb sacrifice in Egypt as each family needed its own. It specifically wasn't for any more common good. If you are talking about the communal sin sacrifeces, then wouldn't it be a "sacrificial bull"?

It’s backed up by, as I showed you, the yearly ceremony carried out by the Jews as a symbolic prophesy of the purpose of the messiah - to die (in sacrifice - to give his life) to remove the global sin of Adam which condemned all mankind to spiritual death no matter how righteous (though sinful) a life they may have lived.

except that's not what any yearly ceremony in Judaism was, and that is not the Jewish idea of a messiah at all. Making these claims just shows an ignorance of Judaism and a reliance on an outsider vuiew of what the outised wants Judaism to have said.

 

[Soapy]

That's inaccurate on so many levels.

1. the servant is explicitly equated to the Jewish nation
2. the "suffering" is a label created by the non-Jewish kings who are observing the Jews
3. the lamb that was slaughtered wasn't a sin sacrifice if it was the paschal lamb
4. things aren't sacrificed in anticipation of any other sacrifice
5. Jesus wasn't sacrificed -- he wasn't eligible and wasn't killed properly

and there's more of course.
Ah baseless etymological conclusions that put the cart before the horse. The sacrificial lamb was a sacrifice of a lamb. All animals were prized (and in Egypt, sacrificing a lamb was a show of faith and resistance to Egypt). There is no "common good" in the biblical lamb sacrifice in Egypt as each family needed its own. It specifically wasn't for any more common good. If you are talking about the communal sin sacrifeces, then wouldn't it be a "sacrificial bull"?

except that's not what any yearly ceremony in Judaism was, and that is not the Jewish idea of a messiah at all. Making these claims just shows an ignorance of Judaism and a reliance on an outsider vuiew of what the outised wants Judaism to have said.

All references are concerning the times in which the Bible scriptures were written about.

Contemporary Judaism may be different but the scriptures foretell that this would occur - and so it is as you have written in your reply.

The Bible prophesies are always true - so thank you for showing that it exactly is so.

 

[rosends]

All references are concerning the times in which the Bible scriptures were written about.

Great, so they aren't foretelling anything beyond that time. Therefore they aren't prophecies. Thanks.

Contemporary Judaism may be different but the scriptures foretell that this would occur - and so it is as you have written in your reply.

But Judaism was the context into which the texts were written and given so it makes no sense to assume a meaning that goes away from Judaism.

The Bible prophesies are always true - so thank you for showing that it exactly is so.

But you don't understand what a bible prophecy is, let alone what this one means.

 

[Soapy]

Great, so they aren't foretelling anything beyond that time. Therefore they aren't prophecies. Thanks.


But Judaism was the context into which the texts were written and given so it makes no sense to assume a meaning that goes away from Judaism.

But you don't understand what a bible prophecy is, let alone what this one means.

Wrong again. ‘I’ am not prophesying… the scriptures is!

God foretold that He would send a saviour, a messiah, and that messiah would be dignified by the observation of His spirit coming upon and remaining on the chosen one.

This is what the first part of Isaiah 42:1 says.

Then God prophesied that this SERVANT (whom he said would please him!) would BRING JUSTICE to the nations. Further verses express what this justice means, even for the Gentiles whom were formally shunned.

You say I don’t know what prophesy is… Please, you tell me and give me an example, then!

 

[rosends]

Wrong again. ‘I’ am not prophesying… the scriptures is!

I didn't claim you were. I'm saying that you said that the text speaks of its own time and then that the text says things. You can't then turn those into statements of another time without being hypocritical.

God foretold that He would send a saviour, a messiah, and that messiah would be dignified by the observation of His spirit coming upon and remaining on the chosen one.

No, he didn't. Can you show me at all in Isaiah 42 where the text mentions either a messiah or a "saviour"?

This is what the first part of Isaiah 42:1 says.

Then God prophesied that this SERVANT (whom he said would please him!) would BRING JUSTICE to the nations. Further verses express what this justice means, even for the Gentiles whom were formally shunned.

And the text has made it clear who the servant is. Cf 45:4
"For the sake of My servant Jacob,
Israel My chosen one,"

compare that language to 42:
"This is My servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one, in whom I delight."

You say I don’t know what prophesy is… Please, you tell me and give me an example, then!

The biblical concept of nevu'ah (which is often translated into English as "prophecy") is "the transmission of a message from God to the people."

That's a pretty simple and straightforward biblical fact. Insisting that something must be talking about the future because you think that prophecy is about the future shows that you don't understand what biblical prophecy is. QED.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, it is the word of God.

Trinitarians CAPITALISE and HUMANISE the word of God as a title ‘The WORD of God’.

In Revelation Jesus is seen a man on a horse who had the words ‘Word of God’ on his thigh.

This does not mean that the NAME of the Jesus is ‘Word’… but that the SYMBOLISM is that Jesus REPRESENTS ‘ALL THAT GOD TAUGHT HIM TO SAY and DO’.

What is a King’s word taught to another and carried out by another? Does that make the taught person KING because he represents and presents the WORD OF THE KING?

Author of John wrote:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am !”

Writings of Paul and author of John contain high Christology. Jesus is a divine being that became human. He existed before all creation...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes it does say that. Isaiah 42:1 is the strongest verse and it’s quoted as being spoken by almighty God.

Isaiah uses the servent metaphor throughout, and identifiies this servent as Israel:
Isaiah 41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend

 

[Soapy]

Isaiah uses the servent metaphor throughout, and identifiies this servent as Israel:
Isaiah 41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend

In this verse God identifies THE JEWS as his favoured nation… but both Israel the man and Israel the nation.

You see that the verse states the descendants (plural) of Abraham. So this is not a single person (though the man (Jacob) is the Father of the nation that takes his name! God is not without wit!!)

 

[rosends]

In this verse God identifies THE JEWS as his favoured nation… but both Israel the man and Israel the nation.

You see that the verse states the descendants (plural) of Abraham. So this is not a single person (though the man (Jacob) is the Father of the nation that takes his name! God is not without wit!!)

Biblically, the nation of Israel is referred to in both the singular and the plural. Look at Ex 19:2 for a verse that uses both in the same breath. Ex 20: 18 vs 19 shows the same switch.

 

[Soapy]

Author of John wrote:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am !”

Writings of Paul and author of John contain high Christology. Jesus is a divine being that became human. He existed before all creation...

Every trinitarian gets this do wrong!

Jesus was answering the Jews about being greater than Abraham. Jesus effectively stated: ‘YES, I am greater than Abraham …. Because Abraham foresaw my day and was glad to know that salvation was to come from one from his own loins!’

Greater is the one who delivers over the one who foresaw, through the prophesy, of the deliverance.

The Jews were up in arms because Jesus indeed stated that he was greater than Abraham…. They were furious that a ‘young man - not yet fifty years old - should claim precedents of authority over their most revered ancestor. This is why they took up stones to try and stone him!

The term, ‘Before’, means ‘Greater than’, ‘Ahead of’…

Witness that John the Baptist also said that Jesus was ‘Before’ him but we know that John was six months older than Jesus ….. the story of John’s conception six months before Jesus’ is not in the scriptures by accident!!!

Jesus is GREATER THAN John even though John was great!
Jesus is BEFORE John in position of power and authority!

And as for ‘I Am’, contextually that is nothing to do with the name of God: ‘Eigo Eimi’ (Greek translated from Aramaic) is not the name of God any more than ‘Peter’/‘Cephas’ means that Simon IS a stone!

If you believe the ‘I Am’ mesns Jesus is God then you must also believe that Peter is Christ since a verse in the Bible says that:

• ‘The Stone that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness was Christ’

But I’m betting you will say that it doesn’t mean that!!

Well, the next chapter after Jesus was accused about greatness over Abraham, a man born blind who is healed by Jesus is asked if he, indeed, is that man now seeing fully.

The man answers: ‘I Am’…..

 

[Soapy]

Biblically, the nation of Israel is referred to in both the singular and the plural. Look at Ex 19:2 for a verse that uses both in the same breath. Ex 20: 18 vs 19 shows the same switch.

You are saying anything that I don’t know! Nor does what you say further your point. In fact it diminishes your point …. So what was your point?

God states that he would send a saviour servant on whom he would place his spirit - and it was so!

Acts 10:37-38 states it again:

• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.“ (Acts 10:37-38)

God anointed Jesus… etc.

 

[rosends]

You are saying anything that I don’t know! Nor does what you say further your point. In fact it diminishes your point …. So what was your point?

that your claim that the use of the singular is significant and has anything to do with "Israel the man" is wrong.

God states that he would send a saviour servant on whom he would place his spirit - and it was so!

Show me "saviour" in the chapter.

Acts 10:37-38 states it again:

• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.“ (Acts 10:37-38)

God anointed Jesus… etc.

Quoting a non-Jewish text to try and make any case to someone discussing Judaism is not useful.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In this verse God identifies THE JEWS as his favoured nation… but both Israel the man and Israel the nation.

You see that the verse states the descendants (plural) of Abraham. So this is not a single person (though the man (Jacob) is the Father of the nation that takes his name! God is not without wit!!)

I agree. This is what I said. Did you post to support me, or am I missing something?

Specifically, God identifies the Jews as the servant in Isaiah.