Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?

[Flankerl]

Where is your evidence?

...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

Most people who die don't have their bones broken.

So many Messiahs... so little time...

 

[omega2xx]

Philo came before the NT authors and the major points are the same.

Irrelevant. the Greek word does not mean what Philo says. First doesn't mean right.

 

[omega2xx]

Most people who die don't have their bones broken.

So many Messiahs... so little time...

It was the custom of crucifixions to hurry the dying to break their legs. They broke the legs of the 2 thieves, but not Jesus' legs. That fulfilled a Messianic prophecy.

Since the Passover lamb was going to b killed, why did God tell them not to break any of its bones?

 

[Tumah]

Irrelevant. the Greek word does not mean what Philo says. First doesn't mean right.

He didn't invent the word "logos" he invented a philosophy for a word which he borrowed from Greek. That philosophy along with the word, became the theology used by the authors of the NT. This makes sense because Philo lived just before the NT authors and his view would have been quite well known for the authors of the NT to incorporate into their works. It was a concept people were already familiar with. And its not hard to see how using the philosophy of Philo - a Hellenized Jew - along with a diatribe or 10 against the Pharisees, would have been useful in encouraging other Hellenized Jews to join the new club.

Philo's view of God - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

As Jesus, his likeness and image was human, not the likeness and image of God.

Let us consider 1 John 12 more closely

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

The image of God is reflected in His virtues and Divine Perfections. These are the Christ like qualities that exemplify Jesus and we all have the capacity to reflect them in our lives. That does not make us God anymore than it made Christ God, unless we consider John 10:34 and Psalms 82:6

Further Paul states:
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14Paul does not say that God sent Himself, but his son as distinct from God.

This chapter is mostly about the love of God and there is not one verse that supports Jesus being God incarnate.

During His incarnation, he depended on God 100%. He had to live exactly(Heb 2:17) like man so he put all of His godly attributes aside(Phil 2:7). I can do nothing on my own initiative(Jn 5:30). do not speak on My own initiative (Jn 14:10).

I agree with all of this, and you are making my argument for me. You need to go back to the original question posed as to what this incarnation described in John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 actually meant.

Jn 5:30

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30

This supports the distinction between the father and the Son and how Jesus was obedience to God.

Jesus was not omniscient during His. Phil 2:7

Therefore He could not be God.

Jn 12:49

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Consistent with the designation Son of God, inconsistent with being literally God.

Only during His incarnation. You can't compare God as Jesus and God as the Father.

Of course you can. There is one Jesus, not two.

It is impossible lto prove spiritual truths. All I can do is point to verses that I think support what I say. I can't even prove I am a Christian. I might just have the gift of gab.

There are proofs and arguments. You are correct that you can not prove to be a Christian for it is for god alone to judge our hearts, yours and mine.

I have not said you are not a Christian. I have said that one who doesn't have a Biblical understanding of Jesus, who His is and what He has done, can't be a Christian. No disrespect, but if the shoe fits wear it.

Once again, God is the judge. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and the bible as the Christians. Have you ever seen me reject scripture? You consider yourself Christian but that does not mean you deny Moses. I consider myself Baha'i but that does not mean I deny Christ.

 

[Ingledsva]

I wouldn't expect a non-believer to.

LOL! I can read the Greek too.

According to the verse, the Word was God.

Because there was nothing else. The Law is his divine will, Laws, etc. Not a second god.

Jesus mentions the law very little. He mainly taught spiritual truths through parables and other figurative language,
The Bib le tells what He taught and none of it was about Jewish theology, except to correct it occasionally----Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32 , 33-34. 37-38 & 43-44.

It says he taught in the Temple - thus no pagan ideas. He was a Jew teaching Tanakh.

It is not necessary for Him to say it as long as sit is tgaught by others in the Bi ble.

Pure baloney! If he was God, part of a trinity, etc., then saying so would have been his ultimate teaching. He does NOT say any such thing because it wasn't true.

He was claiming only to be the JEWISH awaited messiah.

Actually it came to be understood later. Many spiritual truths were not known originally. It took years of study gto find them and we can still find some today.

NO! It was made-up later, after his death.

Again - if he believed he was God, or part of a trinity, he would have taught such. HE DID NOT TEACH ANY SUCH THING!

*

 

[psychoslice]

We all have our beliefs, and so if our beliefs don't meet our own beliefs then we believe their beliefs are our beliefs.

 

[omega2xx]

Let us consider 1 John 12 more closely

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

The image of God is reflected in His virtues and Divine Perfections. These are the Christ like qualities that exemplify Jesus and we all have the capacity to reflect them in our lives. That does not make us God anymore than it made Christ God, unless we consider John 10:34 and Psalms 82:6

The image of God, that which cannot be seen, can be seen in the actions of Jesus. When God appears in a theophany as the "angel of the Lord", His likeness can be seen.

Further Paul states:
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14Paul does not say that God sent Himself, but his son as distinct from God.

Jesus is the Son. Christ is not. Jesus is the Word(actually the logos); the word was God. How much clearer can it be?

This chapter is mostly about the love of God and there is not one verse that supports Jesus being God incarnate.

There certainly is, you just don't believe it.

I agree with all of this, and you are making my argument for me. You need to go back to the original question posed as to what this incarnation described in John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 actually meant.

Actually you are making my argument for me from I Cor 2:14. The whole first chapter is John is not in some impossible to understand exotic language. It is very simple and straight forward. Those who reject Christianity try to make it not say, what it does say.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:30

This supports the distinction between the father and the Son and how Jesus was obedience to God.

Actually it supports Phil 2:7.

Therefore He could not be God.

Therefore you do not understand the incarnation.

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Consistent with the designation Son of God, inconsistent with being literally God.

Only to those who do not understand the incarnation.

There are proofs and arguments. You are correct that you can not prove to be a Christian for it is for god alone to judge our hearts, yours and mine.

Part of the judgment of our hearts is does the person have a right, Biblical understanding of who Jesus is.

Once again, God is the judge. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and the bible as the Christians.

You do not.

Have you ever seen me reject scripture?

Your reject John 1:1, and there is much Scriptue you do not understand.

You consider yourself Christian but that does not mean you deny Moses. I consider myself Baha'i but that does not mean I deny Christ.

But you deny what the Bible says about Jesus.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL! I can read the Greek too.

Not necessary. I have resources that give me a better understand of any Greek word than anyone in this forum

Because there was nothing else. The Law is his divine will, Laws, etc. Not a second god.

The Trinity is not about a second God. It is about ONE God in 3 distinct persons. I am actually 4 in 1. I am a son, a father, a father in law, a grandfather and a great grandfather. I have different responsibilites in each position.The concept really isn't that hard to understand.

It says he taught in the Temple - thus no pagan ideas. He was a Jew teaching Tanakh.

That simply is not true, He taught very little from the OT. He mainly taught in parables and figurative language.(Jn 16:25). One reason was to fulfill a Messianic prophecy(Mt 13:14).

Pure baloney! If he was God, part of a trinity, etc., then saying so would have been his ultimate teaching. He does NOT say any such thing because it wasn't true.

He did, and the Bible does. you just can't understand it.

>>He was claiming only to be the JEWISH awaited messiah.<<

He never said He was but His miracles and fulfilling Messianic prophecies proved He was. He didn't need to tell them what they would not believe.

NO! It was made-up later, after his death.

It would be nice if you could prove your opinion, but you can't can you?

Again - if he believed he was God, or part of a trinity, he would have taught such. HE DID NOT TEACH ANY SUCH THING!

*

He taquht it by the means I just mentioned.

 

[Rival]

Most people who die don't have their bones broken.

So many Messiahs... so little time...

I fractured my wrist once. Can I still be Mashiach?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The image of God, that which cannot be seen, can be seen in the actions of Jesus. When God appears in a theophany as the "angel of the Lord", His likeness can be seen.

The image of God is not God, anymore than we should be calling a mirror that reflects sunlight, the sun.

Jesus is the Son. Christ is not. Jesus is the Word(actually the logos); the word was God. How much clearer can it be?

So Jesus is actually two different people rolled into one? That sounds distorted, not clear.

Your reject John 1:1, and there is much Scriptue you do not understand.

No, I accept John 1:1 as I do all scripture. I simply understand it in a manner that makes sense to me and consistent with other scripture.

But you deny what the Bible says about Jesus.

No, I have a different understanding of scripture. Christians have a long history of squabbling over scripture, one side accusing the other of being heretics or not being Christian. You are simply repeating history.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have resources that give me a better understand of any Greek word than anyone in this forum

There is a clear Trump quality to your braggadocia.

 

[omega2xx]

The image of God is not God, anymore than we should be calling a mirror that reflects sunlight, the sun.

I didn't say His image was Him. I said His image was invisible. Image refers to things like intellect, compassion, love, even a sense of Humor.

So Jesus is actually two different people rolled into one? That sounds distorted, not clear.

No. He is one person with 2different purposes or ministrys.

No, I accept John 1:1 as I do all scripture. I simply understand it in a manner that makes sense to me and consistent with other scripture.<<

The fact that it doesn't make sense TO YOU, is meaningless except to you and those who also it doesn't make sense to. The concept is simple, you just don't believe it and it is consistent with other Scripture if you understand them.

No, I have a different understanding of scripture. Christians have a long history of squabbling over scripture, one side accusing the other of being heretics or not being Christian. You are simply repeating history.

I may be but maybe you should consider if many other say the same thing, there is a reason for it. I haven't called you a heretic or said you are not a Christian. I gave one definition of a Christians and told you if the shoe fits, wear it. One can't just claim to be a Christian and that makes them one, no matter what they think.


I will bless those who bless you(Abraham)---Gen 3:15
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham--Mt 1:1

 

[omega2xx]

There is a clear Trump quality to your braggadocia.

It is only bragging if you can't back up what you say. Give me any Greek word and I will give you its meaning and may even be able to say how it is being used grammatically. There may be some in the forum that understand Greek, but it is doubtful we have any who are experts.


I will bless those who bless you(Abraham)---Gen 3:15
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham--Mt 1:1

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is only bragging if you can't back up what you say. Give me any Greek word and I will give you its meaning and may even be able to say how it is being used grammatically. There may be some in the forum that understand Greek, but it is doubtful we have any who are experts.


I will bless those who bless you(Abraham)---Gen 3:15
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham--Mt 1:1

I'm sure that we're all extremely impressed by your huge mastery.

By the way, you screwed up your reference to Gen 3:15 bigly. No one who has followed your antics should be surprised.

 

[rosends]

I'm sure that we're all extremely impressed by you huge mastery.

By the way, you screwed up your reference to Gen 3:15 bigly. No one who has followed your antics should be surprised.

It isn't so easy to read...you have to know Greek
καὶ εὐλογήσω τοὺς εὐλογοῦντάς σε καὶ τοὺς καταρωμένους σε καταράσομαι· καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς

very easy to confuse with

καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς· αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν

 

[Dawnofhope]

I didn't say His image was Him. I said His image was invisible. Image refers to things like intellect, compassion, love, even a sense of Humor.

These are characteristics we all possess to some degree. Perhaps Jesus was correct when He quoted from psalms 82:6 to say we are all gods

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:31-34

No. He is one person with 2different purposes or ministrys.

Two ministries? I haven't heard that one before. Please elaborate.

The fact that it doesn't make sense TO YOU, is meaningless except to you and those who also it doesn't make sense to. The concept is simple, you just don't believe it and it is consistent with other Scripture if you understand them.

You are correct that the concept is simple and I don't believe it. It appears irrational and contradictory to other scripture. The reason I personalise my beliefs is out of respect for others who believe differently such as yourself. It also provides you with an opening to explain your beliefs. My beliefs are not unique to me. There are many others including those who consider themselves Christian who hold such beliefs.

I may be but maybe you should consider if many other say the same thing, there is a reason for it. I haven't called you a heretic or said you are not a Christian. I gave one definition of a Christians and told you if the shoe fits, wear it. One can't just claim to be a Christian and that makes them one, no matter what they think.

I do agree that a belief in Jesus as God incarnate is probably held by the majority of Christians although many Christians in my experience either do not really know what they believe or struggle to explain it. Does that shoe fit? You seem to consider yourself to have some authority to determine what constitutes correct and incorrect belief. Is that self appointed, or did someone give it to you?

 

[Ingledsva]

Not necessary. I have resources that give me a better understand of any Greek word than anyone in this forum

LOL! I doubt that very much.

The Trinity is not about a second God. It is about ONE God in 3 distinct persons. I am actually 4 in 1. I am a son, a father, a father in law, a grandfather and a great grandfather. I have different responsibilites in each position.The concept really isn't that hard to understand.

He was a Jew. He taught ONE God YHVH, - no trinity, - three in one, etc.

You know perfectly well that the 4 in 1 YOU, is not the same thing. There is not a visible separate YOU son walking around at the same time as the NOW You, and praying to YOU.

The Bible has a sentence having all of them doing different things at the same time. Three SEPARATE beings.

Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

1. - 2. - 3. - separate beings - at the same time. No trinity God in one.

And I might add; - why the need for more then one throne in heaven - if they are one being? Why would Jesus need a separate throne?

Why would he sit beside God at the end, - if he was God?

He taquht it by the means I just mentioned.

Jesus never said he was God - or part of any trinity. That is the way it is. You can't change that.

AND - he DID claim to be the awaited Messiah.

(Jesus) Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

We also have this, -

Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

...
I will bless those who bless you(Abraham)---Gen 3:15
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham--Mt 1:1

Jesus isn't from the line of David.

Joseph is, - but you folks claim God did it. So NO Davidic lineage.

And this is what Gen 3:15 actually says -

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.

*

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is simple is to accept the NT doctrine of the second coming. Then He will fulfill the rest of them. It is statistically impossible for Him to have fulfilled dozens of Messianic prophecies and not be the Messiah.

Are we discussing Jesus or Immanuel?