Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,140,587 members, 7,770,533 topics. Date: Tuesday, 19 March 2024 at 11:27 AM

Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? (4368 Views)

How Do We Know That Jesus Is The Son Of God? / Dr. Sign Fireman: Man Of God Or Man Of Money? (Video Documentary) / Who Really Rules The World, Jehovah God or Satan?? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by misright(f): 12:17pm On Mar 16, 2007
As much as I try, I can not seem to grasp the trinity concept. I mean, I read John 3:16 and God clearly calls Jesus "[His] only begotten son". When Jesus was baptized, God called from heaven saying he was pleased with His son. In the garden, before the crucifixion, Jesus prays to God three times. On the cross, Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"? After the resurrection, Jesus tells His disciples that He is going to sit at His Fathers right hand. Stephen was stoned in the book of Acts, He witnessed "the Son of man standing at the Fathers right hand".

Even in Revelations 3:5, Jesus talks about confessing the names to the Father. In verse 3:14, Is that saying Jesus was created first or am I wrong? Revelations 3:12 says, "His God ", Jesus is speaking there. Nope, I am not Morman, Jehova's Witness, or any other weird off shoot. I am in a normal christian church and just reading my bible wondering, 'Why do people think Jesus is God when the bible says Jesus is God's son'? What about 1John 2:22, ", He is the antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son".

Okay, I will stop now. God Bless You!

Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by jagunlabi(m): 12:29pm On Mar 16, 2007
Jesus has to be God to get one up on the rival religions,especially islam.No other reason is there.
In other for christianity to win the ongoing battle,it's number one figure,JESUS,just has to be the one and only GOD.
The battle of the two big cults,excuse me,religions,goes on.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by shahan(f): 12:29pm On Mar 16, 2007
@misright,

misright:

As much as I try, I can not seem to grasp the trinity concept. . . I am in a normal christian church and just reading my bible wondering, 'Why do people think Jesus is God when the bible says Jesus is God's son'?

Some discussions on this in Who Was Jesus Before He Became A Man?. Cheers.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by dafidixone(m): 9:34am On Mar 19, 2007
Dear Friend,
It is important to know that this question you asked required devine knowledge to understand it.  So take this prayer and said " God give me the knowlege require to undersand your mystery in Jesus name"

Start you search of the bible from the verse that says: "In the begining was the WORD(Jesus), and the WORD(Jesus) was with God and the WORD (Jesus) was God. In your next reply let me know the vers as a proof to know that you really search the scripture.

God said in Genesis that " Come let US(God talking to his son and his spirit) make man in our own Image.  Jesus Christ is The son of God He(Jesus) is in God and He (Jesus) is God.  No controversy.

Need to know more write to me on my e mail korededavid@yahoo.com

Thanks and May God give you the devine knowlege to understand this mystery.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by sage(m): 8:59am On Mar 20, 2007
The trinity is the biggest fraud ever perpertrated by the Church. Its a lie that slanders God right to his face. A fourth century doctrine incoperated into the Church at the council the pagan emperor Constantine arrainged.

Seems like Jesus found it too much of work to simply tell his followers that he was God rather than decieve them by saying somebody was above him and acting up like he was doing somebody elses will.

This doctrine is the biggest lie on earth.

Ask me and il give you a million scriptures. The bible is clear on this. Very very clear.
I have some interesting material on it.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by sage(m): 9:00am On Mar 20, 2007
And its no mystery.

Jesus is God's Son, subject to his father who is the Almighty.

John 1:1 cannot contradict the rest of the bible.

Ive gone through this numerous times. If the bible contradicts itself then it renders itself a conflicting and useless text.

But since the bible does not contradict itself, John 1:1 original rendering cannot contradict the rest of the bible
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 11:04am On Mar 20, 2007
@sage,

sage:

The trinity is the biggest fraud ever perpertrated by the Church. Its a lie that slanders God right to his face. A fourth century doctrine incoperated into the Church at the council the pagan emperor Constantine arrainged.

I'm sorry to observe that you don't even have a good grasp of theology and Biblical history. Long before Constantine was born, the inspired apostles of the NT and the prophets of the OT have all indicated that the Son of God is God; and the Trinity is a central Biblical teaching in the Christian faith.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by misright(f): 6:24pm On Mar 20, 2007
The question is 'Is Jesus the son of God or, '
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by KAG: 7:58pm On Mar 20, 2007
stimulus:

@sage,

I'm sorry to observe that you don't even have a good grasp of theology and Biblical history. Long before Constantine was born, the inspired apostles of the NT and the prophets of the OT have all indicated that the Son of God is God; and the Trinity is a central Biblical teaching in the Christian faith.

Which prophets in the OT indicated the son of God is God? Furthermore, which, if any, of them mentioned or alluded to a trinity?
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 8:55pm On Mar 20, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

Which prophets in the OT indicated the son of God is God?

In Isaiah 9:6, who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"?

Who was the prophet referring to in Zachariah 12:10?

KAG:

Furthermore, which, if any, of them mentioned or alluded to a trinity?

What did Genesis 1:26 point to - "Let Us make man in Our image"?

And what does Proverbs 30:4 point out?


@misright,
misright:

The question is 'Is Jesus the son of God or, '

. . . Or what??
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by KAG: 9:23pm On Mar 20, 2007
stimulus:

@KAG,

In Isaiah 9:6, who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"?

YHVH. see: http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/ for a Jewish translation of the verse.

Who was the prophet referring to in Zachariah 12:10?

Jerusalem and the house of David.


What did Genesis 1:26 point to - "Let Us make man in Our image"?

Either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic.

And what does Proverbs 30:4 point out?

I have no idea, especially after reading it in context.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 9:40pm On Mar 20, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

YHVH. see: http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/ for a Jewish translation of the verse.

What exactly is the "Jewish" translation of Isaiah 9:6?

KAG:

Jerusalem and the house of David.

Read Zachariah 12:10 again - carefully: "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced.

KAG:

Either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic.

Which is which? None of what you allege.

KAG:

I have no idea, especially after reading it in context.

In what context did you read it?
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by abdkabir(m): 2:52am On Mar 21, 2007
This Question could be really complex as there has been so much argument on the issue. The very reason i have come to conclude the best way in the affairs btw believers is just Mutual Respect.

Having said that, as a Muslim i would posit that,"If i were to assume that the Bible Verse In the Beginning was the Word --- " is truely part ofthe Glad tidings of Jesus the Son of Mary, then the Question to ask is this.Pls when i say the Glad Tidings of Jesus, i mean the (Injil) the Quran mentioned.

Since God is Such without beginning nor End thus God was before the beginning and we say Jesus is the Word ,how possible then is Jesus God since He only was in the Beginning. Simply put, He isnt God , he couldn't be God. We might argue that he is a son of God which might be acceptable though some may not expect that of a Muslim. But certainly He's not God and he's certainly a servant of God.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 8:47am On Mar 21, 2007
@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

Having said that, as a Muslim i would posit that,"If i were to assume that the Bible Verse In the Beginning was the Word --- " is truely part ofthe Glad tidings of Jesus the Son of Mary, then the Question to ask is this.Please when i say the Glad Tidings of Jesus, i mean the (Injil) the Quran mentioned.

I appreciate your intelligent reasoning and question on this subject. However, I haven't seen any Muslim provide the documents of the Injil of the Qur'an so we may read and examine the claims of Islam against the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

abdkabir:

Since God is Such without beginning nor End thus God was before the beginning and we say Jesus is the Word ,how possible then is Jesus God since He only was in the Beginning.

Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that the 'WORD' (the Logos), was created. If He was created, then by what did God create Him? If you argue the Muslim way that He was created by the 'Word', then you're making reference to two LOGOS, which is neither taught in the Qur'an nor in the Bible.

God is without beginning nor end, certainly. The Logos did not have a beginning, nor will He have an end. The LOGOS did not begin to exist; but John 1:1 says that 'In the biginning was the Word'; that is, the Word already was in the beginning. If He began to exist in the "beginning", we would expect the verse to say something rather like: "in the beginning, the Word began to exist" - which is not the sense at all in the original language.

abdkabir:

Simply put, He isnt God , he couldn't be God. We might argue that he is a son of God which might be acceptable though some may not expect that of a Muslim. But certainly He's not God and he's certainly a servant of God.

It's alright to deny the Deity of the Word, afterall that's what Islam teaches. But before Islam, the prophets Isaiah, Micah, and Zachariah (among others) have well established the Deity of the Messiah centuries before He was born as a Man.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by KAG: 6:01pm On Mar 22, 2007
stimulus:

@KAG,

What exactly is the "Jewish" translation of Isaiah 9:6?

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us.  And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

In token of abundant authority  And of peace without limit  Upon David’s Throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established  In justice and equity Now and evermore.  The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass."


Read Zachariah 12:10 again - carefully: "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced.

Metaphorically, not physically.

Which is which? None of what you allege.

I'd go for polytheism my self. Why isn't it any of the options I put forward?

In what context did you read it?

This context:

"The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: "
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 6:36pm On Mar 22, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David’s Throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass."

For all of that, in reference to the 'Jewish translation', who is being referred to as the Mighty God in that verse other than the Messiah? Please read the article carefully in the weblink you recommended.

KAG:

Metaphorically, not physically.

Whether metaphorically, physically or any other way you choose, does it take away from my answer earlier? The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced - and that is the Messiah, which Zachariah 12:10 indicated as God Himself.

KAG:

I'd go for polytheism my self. Why isn't it any of the options I put forward?

You could choose whichever to suit your personal persuasion. Judaism was not founded on polytheism; nor any of the options you couldn't settle for.

KAG:

This context:

"The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: "

The prophecy of Agur clearly indicated the answer to your question - the Son of God is deity Himself.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by KAG: 7:11pm On Mar 22, 2007
stimulus:

@KAG,

For all of that, in reference to the 'Jewish translation', who is being referred to as the Mighty God in that verse other than the Messiah? Please read the article carefully in the weblink you recommended.


I already told you: YHVH. That's why it's "The Mighty God is planning grace".

Whether metaphorically, physically or any other way you choose, does it take away from my answer earlier?

Yes, because taking it out of context and trying to make it a reference to a physical event is something apologists that site Jesus as the messiah have done for ages.

The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced - and that is the Messiah, which Zachariah 12:10 indicated as God Himself.

Nope. No where in the verse does it mention or refer to a messiah.


You could choose whichever to suit your personal persuasion. Judaism was not founded on polytheism; nor any of the options you couldn't settle for.

If Judaism was forged from it's environs, then it most certainly had polytheistic roots. Now, you still haven't answered my question. Also, how does the verse point to the trinity as believed by most Christians?

The prophecy of Agur clearly indicated the answer to your question - the Son of God is deity Himself.

How so? Just highlighting and taking wrds out of their context only works if the context isn't available to be seen.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 8:06pm On Mar 22, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

I already told you: YHVH. That's why it's "The Mighty God is planning grace".

Here are excerpts from the weblink you offered for the 'Jewish' translation:



Jewish Interpretation of these verses

The Jewish interpreters see the meaning here much different from Christians. Some interpreters see these verses fulfilled in Hezekiah, the royal son, who sat on the throne of David, where his father Ahaz sat. Other Jewish interpreters clearly see this as messianic in nature, the names referring to the Messiah according to the Talmud and Midrash. Abraham ibn Ezra[5] agrees the names refer to the Messiah. Michael Brown’s work, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus volume III quotes Ibn Ezra’s views on this verse, he has the following footnote regarding the names of Messiah, quoting from Talmudic and midrashic sources.

“R. Yose the Galilean said: “The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, Everlasting Father, Prince Peace’” (Midrash Pereq Shalom, p. 101); “The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon[see Psalm 72:17], Tzemach [e.g. Jer. 23:5]; Pele’ [Wonderful, Isa. 9:6(5)], Yo’etz[Counselor, Isa. 9:6(5)], Mashiach [Messiah], El[God, Isa. 9:6(5), Gibbor[Hero. 9:6(5) and Avi Ad Shalom [Eternal Father of Peace, Isa. 9:6(5); see Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20[6]

The Targum Jonathan also references these verses in Isaiah as referring to the Messiah.

“For to us a son is born, to us a son is given; and he shall receive the Law upon him to keep it; and his name is called from of Old, wonderful, Counselor, Eloha, The Mighty, Abiding to Eternity, The Messiah, because peace shall be multiplied on us in his days.” Targum Jonathan

The Midrash on Deuteronomy also references these verses as referring to the Messiah.
Rabbi Samuel, the son of Nachman, said, ‘When Esau met Jacob he said unto him, “My brother Jacob, let us walk together in this world. Jacob replied: Let my Lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant” (Genesis 33:14) What is the meaning of, “I pray thee, pass over? Jacob said to him; I have yet to supply the Messiah, of whom it is said: “Unto us a child is born” Midrash (Deuteronomy 2;4)

Please note that all Jewish references in your argument (Talmud and Midrash; Targum Jonathan; and 'The Midrash on Deuteronomy') categorically point out that the verse in Isaiah was referring to the Messiah. The peripheral argument by some that it referred to Hezekiah is dissolved in the answers following the section quoted above. Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 referred to the Messiah as God.

KAG:

Yes, because taking it out of context and trying to make it a reference to a physical event is something apologists that site Jesus as the messiah have done for ages.

Specifically, my question was pointing to the One who pours out the Spirit. And if we adopt your own interpretation, how does Zachariah 12:10 indicate that the one being referred to was "Jerusalem and the house of David"? So, without 'taking it out of context', could you give your own contextual interpretation in the 21st century?

KAG:

Nope. No where in the verse does it mention or refer to a messiah.

That being so, who else was being referred to in that verse?

KAG:

If Judaism was forged from it's environs, then it most certainly had polytheistic roots.

Just because you say so does not establish your allegation.

KAG:

Now, you still haven't answered my question.

What question, please?

KAG:

Also, how does the verse point to the trinity as believed by most Christians?

Gen. 1:26 is one of the earliest texts that clearly indicates the Trinity; for both in the entire OT and NT a consistency is maintained as to the Father being the Source of creation; the Word (the Son who is the Logos) bringing creation into existence; and the Holy Spirit the agency by which creation subsists.

KAG:

How so? Just highlighting and taking wrds out of their context only works if the context isn't available to be seen.

Even without highlighting any word, what is 'prophecy' doing in that verse? If you had a context, why haven't we seen it earlier instead of:

KAG:

I have no idea, especially after reading it in context.
??
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by abdkabir(m): 2:10am On Mar 23, 2007
stimulus:

I appreciate your intelligent reasoning and question on this subject. However, I haven't seen any Muslim provide the documents of the Injil of the Qur'an so we may read and examine the claims of Islam against the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The general knowledge as regards the meaning of the Injil in islam is that of the Word /Message given Jesus to Spread. That would be the message commanded him by God to Spread. It is on this basis that some consider the New Testament part of the Bible as a compilation of the reporting of the "Message of Jesus/ Glad Tidings of Jesus " by 3rd parties . Thus for the muslim, the purest form of the Injil was that revealed to the Heart of Jesus,which he preached to the people. THe Injil in its purest form is intangible.

I shall address the other issues u raised subsequently, by Gods Grace. smiley
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 7:27am On Mar 23, 2007
@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

The general knowledge as regards the meaning of the Injil in islam is that of the Word /Message given Jesus to Spread. That would be the message commanded him by God to Spread. It is on this basis that some consider the New Testament part of the Bible as a compilation of the reporting of the "Message of Jesus/ Glad Tidings of Jesus " by 3rd parties . Thus for the muslim, the purest form of the Injil was that revealed to the Heart of Jesus,which he preached to the people. THe Injil in its purest form is intangible.

If the Injil is intangible, then there was no message at all; and thus the Islamic apologetic that the NT has been 'corrupted from its original form' has no substance. Further, it would also mean that the Psalms which the Qur'an alleges were sent down and revealed to David are intangible by the same rule. And so on for all the other messages the Qur'an alleges were sent down and revealed by the same Allah of the Islamic faith.

Now, if the issue of compilation by any party should arise at all and thus be a problem to the Muslim, does that not apply in the case of the political redaction of the present Qur'an which was 'compiled' by third parties as well - the conference organized by the third Caliph, Uthman? In any case, the Qur'an stands in the very same problematic position that Muslims attribute to any portion of the Bible.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by KAG: 10:58pm On Mar 23, 2007
stimulus:

@KAG,

Here are excerpts from the weblink you offered for the 'Jewish' translation:

Yes, I read it, and it seems you've employed your rather irritating habit of highlighting words to give a different impression from their contexts.

Please note that all Jewish references in your argument (Talmud and Midrash; Targum Jonathan; and 'The Midrash on Deuteronomy') categorically point out that the verse in Isaiah was referring to the Messiah. The peripheral argument by some that it referred to Hezekiah is dissolved in the answers following the section quoted above. Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 referred to the Messiah as God.

Yes, so? The argument isn't whether Isaiah 9 could be interpreted as a messianic prophecy, the argument is whether the writer of Isaiah was not only talking about the Christian concept of the trinity, but also alluding to an only Son of God. If you hadn't decided to instigate the games we play, you'd have noticed that I wasn't arguing against a midrash reading that offered a prophecy of a messiah.

So, once again, that portion of the verse should read, "The Mighty God is planning grace" and not the attempt to take it out of context by simply highlighting just "the mighty God".

Also, that the verse couldn't be an out and out refernce to Hezekiah and his seed is debatable, but that's not the point here.

Specifically, my question was pointing to the One who pours out the Spirit. And if we adopt your own interpretation, how does Zachariah 12:10 indicate that the one being referred to was "Jerusalem and the house of David"? So, without 'taking it out of context', could you give your own contextual interpretation in the 21st century?

While, the verse makes it clear that YHVH will pour out his spirit, the verses that both precede and follow verse 10 all allude to both Jerusalem and the house of David

So, in essence the book as a whole was speaking of the relationship between YHVH and the Jews. By the way, I still don't see how you concluded from that verse that Zechariah was talking about an equality between the Messiah and YHVH.

That being so, who else was being referred to in that verse?

Other than YHVH, the inhabitants of Judah, no one else.

Just because you say so does not establish your allegation.

I'm glad you asked, because due to a discussion I had with a rather nice poster on this forum, I stumbled not only on David Rohl's (a source she kindly provided) theory that the Jewish God was the same as Enki of Sumerian fame, but also on this rather suggestive tidbit:

"At Kuntillet 'Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Sinai Desert in the 1975 excavation, a pottery ostracon was inscribed "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah"wink. This inscription would appear to show northern Israelite influence but others have suggested that "Shomron" should be read “shomrenu”, "our Guardian". There may also be another reference to YHVH and His Asherah in an inscription on the building wall.

, An additional reference to YHVH and His Asherah, has been found at Khirbet el-Qom, near Hebron, where an inscription reads "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!" (Berlinerblau)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#Asherah_and_other_gods). Just a quick and easily referenced example that supports my "allegation".

What question, please?

You asked what the "Us" in Genesis meant, I replied that it was "either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic"; you replied that it was none of the options I mentioned, I asked you "why isn't it any of the options I put forward?"

Gen. 1:26 is one of the earliest texts that clearly indicates the Trinity; for both in the entire OT and NT a consistency is maintained as to the Father being the Source of creation; the Word (the Son who is the Logos) bringing creation into existence; and the Holy Spirit the agency by which creation subsists.

I'm trying to find some kind of reference to that in the verse, but for the life of me, I can't. Could you perhaps show me where in even the entire chapter it alludes or mentions what you've written?

Even without highlighting any word, what is 'prophecy' doing in that verse? If you had a context, why haven't we seen it earlier instead of:
??

Like I said, I have no idea what the chapter is about (it's certainly very strange both structurallay and grammatically), but it is plain that you have to stretch, drop words, and pull others out of context to get a reference to not a only the messiah, but also to a God that is the same as his son.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 1:16am On Mar 24, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

Yes, I read it, and it seems you've employed your rather irritating habit of highlighting words to give a different impression from their contexts.

Which is immaterial to the gist of my pointers. Even if I didn't highlight any word, how does that take away from the substance of the excerpts quoted from the website you recommended?

KAG:

Yes, so? The argument isn't whether Isaiah 9 could be interpreted as a messianic prophecy, the argument is whether the writer of Isaiah was not only talking about the Christian concept of the trinity, but also alluding to an only Son of God. If you hadn't decided to instigate the games we play, you'd have noticed that I wasn't arguing against a midrash reading that offered a prophecy of a messiah.

You preempted your games and offered a weblink that diffused your argument. My position still remains unwavered as to Isaiah 9:6 pointing to the Messiah who in that verse is called 'the Mighty God'.

KAG:

So, once again, that portion of the verse should read, "The Mighty God is planning grace" and not the attempt to take it out of context by simply highlighting just "the mighty God".

When you're done with your 'translation', could you offer us a contextual interpretation as to who Isaiah referred to as the Mighty God in Jewish understanding? Please go back and read the article on the weblink you offered.

KAG:

Also, that the verse couldn't be an out and out refernce to Hezekiah and his seed is debatable, but that's not the point here.

Glad you noted that.

KAG:

While, the verse makes it clear that YHVH will pour out his spirit, the verses that both precede and follow verse 10 all allude to both Jerusalem and the house of David

Which is not what my initial question was about. I offered the context of Zachariah 12:10 as pointing out that the 'The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced' in allusion to the Messiah.

KAG:

So, in essence the book as a whole was speaking of the relationship between YHVH and the Jews. By the way, I still don't see how you concluded from that verse that Zechariah was talking about an equality between the Messiah and YHVH.

I don't remember debating 'the book as a whole'; nor contrasting an equality between the Messiah and YHVH. The point of Zachariah 12:10 was that the One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced. Who would that be other than the Messiah?

KAG:

Other than YHVH, the inhabitants of Judah, no one else.

Aiight, so in your 'context' the inhabitants of Judah would be 'pierced' and they also would pour out the Spirit?

KAG:

I'm glad you asked, because due to a discussion I had with a rather nice poster on this forum, I stumbled not only on David Rohl's (a source she kindly provided) theory that the Jewish God was the same as Enki of Sumerian fame, but also on this rather suggestive tidbit:

"At Kuntillet 'Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Sinai Desert in the 1975 excavation, a pottery ostracon was inscribed "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah"wink. This inscription would appear to show northern Israelite influence but others have suggested that "Shomron" should be read “shomrenu”, "our Guardian". There may also be another reference to YHVH and His Asherah in an inscription on the building wall.

, An additional reference to YHVH and His Asherah, has been found at Khirbet el-Qom, near Hebron, where an inscription reads "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!" (Berlinerblau)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#Asherah_and_other_gods). Just a quick and easily referenced example that supports my "allegation".

I'm not nonplussed by that, because it doesn't come as a surprise that you were seeking to lead the discussion to such theories. And for all that, the weblink you offered earlier simply affirms what you tried to disprove - that Isaiah 9:6 was in reference to the Messiah whom honest Jewish interpretations affirm was being called 'The Mighty God.'

KAG:

You asked what the "Us" in Genesis meant, I replied that it was "either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic"; you replied that it was none of the options I mentioned, I asked you "why isn't it any of the options I put forward?"

If you wanted to maintain an honest debate on the issue, I would oblige you. If, on the other hand, you take the liberty to be accusative with such terms as 'schizophrenic' just to drive a point, how does that help your reasoning?

KAG:

I'm trying to find some kind of reference to that in the verse, but for the life of me, I can't. Could you perhaps show me where in even the entire chapter it alludes or mentions what you've written?

As alluding to the Trinity, Gen. 1:26 has been offered. Already in verse 2 we find the Spirit; and in vs. 16 & 17 it is said that 'God made' and 'God set them'.

KAG:

Like I said, I have no idea what the chapter is about (it's certainly very strange both structurallay and grammatically), but it is plain that you have to stretch, drop words, and pull others out of context to get a reference to not a only the messiah, but also to a God that is the same as his son.

Repeating your allegation hasn't really helped your argument there. Even without my offering any interpretation of Prov. 30:4, what has been your difficulty offering one yourself instead of making so much of what you don't like about mine?
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by KAG: 2:15am On Mar 24, 2007
stimulus:

@KAG,

Which is immaterial to the gist of my pointers. Even if I didn't highlight any word, how does that take away from the substance of the excerpts quoted from the website you recommended?

In that you've given it your own slant and moved the focus from what was proposed.

You preempted your games and offered a weblink that diffused your argument. My position still remains unwavered as to Isaiah 9:6 pointing to the Messiah who in that verse is called 'the Mighty God'.

I offered a weblink that provided the Jewsih interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, the site was intentionally chosen because it is a site that, despite holding a different view, still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse. Furthermore, your position could remain stationary on the Messiah issue, but that of course has little to do with what can be seen as the full and right interpretation of the verse.

When you're done with your 'translation', could you offer us a contextual interpretation as to who Isaiah referred to as the Mighty God in Jewish understanding? Please go back and read the article on the weblink you offered.

For the third time, the Mighty God is YHVH, and the part of the text you've, in a manner of speaking, quote mined is the “The Mighty God is planning grace". In context, not only does that make sense, but it also aligns itself with the Jewish understanding of what the Messiah will be like.

The context once again: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—


Glad you noted that.

Well, it was either that or follow your detraction.

Which is not what my initial question was about. I offered the context of Zachariah 12:10 as pointing out that the 'The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced' in allusion to the Messiah.

I don't remember debating 'the book as a whole'; nor contrasting an equality between the Messiah and YHVH. The point of Zachariah 12:10 was that the One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced.

While you may have offered Zachariah 12:10 as an allsuion to the messaiah, the verse itself still doesn't support that premise. Also, you may not have been debating the book as a whole, but the chapter as a whole does serve as context for the verse and helps put it in perspective.

Who would that be other than the Messiah?

YHVH; hence metaphor.

Aiight, so in your 'context' the inhabitants of Judah would be 'pierced' and they also would pour out the Spirit?

No.


I'm not nonplussed by that, because it doesn't come as a surprise that you were seeking to lead the discussion to such theories. And for all that, the weblink you offered earlier simply affirms what you tried to disprove - that Isaiah 9:6 was in reference to the Messiah whom honest Jewish interpretations affirm was being called 'The Mighty God.'

I wan't trying to "lead the discussion to such theories"; I was simply trying provide as much information for you while supporting my allusion to the polytheistic roots of Judaism (allsuions you termed "allegations"wink. That you're non-plussed about that aspect of Judaism isn't of much concern, but that you should re-introduce your earlier point on Isaiah 9 is.

Let's be clear once again, the Jewish interpretaion of Isaiah 9:6 is "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—" Some have applied a midrashic reading to it and have decided it's a messianic prophecy; however, that contention shouldn't change the common interpretation of the verse.


If you wanted to maintain an honest debate on the issue, I would oblige you. If, on the other hand, you take the liberty to be accusative with such terms as 'schizophrenic' just to drive a point, how does that help your reasoning?

It's hardly accusative to call a reference to a "Us" by a singular deity, schizophrenic. So, if you're done playing "injured party", you can actually respond to my question. Furthermore, I've tried to maintain an honest debate, even going as far as to support my "allegations". If anything, it's you that hasn't been able to keep it honest.

As alluding to the Trinity, Gen. 1:26 has been offered. Already in verse 2 we find the Spirit; and in vs. 16 & 17 it is said that 'God made' and 'God set them'.

Er, this verse 2:" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."; vs 16&17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"?

First, verse two doesn't indicate that the Spirit of God is a separate entity from God. It is, in essence, talking about the same GOd from verse 1 who created the heavens and the Earth, then moved across the face of the waters, not a separate spirit from or of that God.

Secondly, what does the "God made"s in verses 16 and 17 have to do with the trinity?


Repeating your allegation hasn't really helped your argument there. Even without my offering any interpretation of Prov. 30:4, what has been your difficulty offering one yourself instead of making so much of what you don't like about mine?

This is getting ridiculous. What has been my difficulty in offering an interpretation? For the thrid time of asking, "I have no idea what the chapter is about "; however, being unable to offer an interpretation doesn't stop me from recognising a flawed one.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 6:16am On Mar 24, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

In that you've given it your own slant and moved the focus from what was proposed.

Are you not rather crying out against your own slant?

KAG:

I offered a weblink that provided the Jewsih interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, the site was intentionally chosen because it is a site that, despite holding a different view, still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse.

'Still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse' - as pointing to who else than to the Messiah?

KAG:

Furthermore, your position could remain stationary on the Messiah issue, but that of course has little to do with what can be seen as the full and right interpretation of the verse.

What then is the 'full and right interpretation of the verse'? Incase you missed it, here again are a few lines from the same link:

The Targum Jonathan also references these verses in Isaiah as referring to the Messiah.
- - -
The name used to describe the Messiah is El Gabor ( E(rwbbg la) mighty God. This phrase is only used 3 times in the Tanakh, Isaiah 10:21 and Ezekiel 32;21. Only in Isaiah, is it used as a as a name
.

KAG:

For the third time, the Mighty God is YHVH, and the part of the text you've, in a manner of speaking, quote mined is the “The Mighty God is planning grace". In context, not only does that make sense, but it also aligns itself with the Jewish understanding of what the Messiah will be like.

That's all that needed to be said from the onset in regards to my offering Isaiah 9:6 in answer to your initial question. The Jewish understanding of that verse simply points to the Messiah.

KAG:

The context once again: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

And this again is different from the Messiah?

KAG:

Well, it was either that or follow your detraction.

I don't see any detraction other than your roundabout allusion to 'Jewish interpretation' in the attempt to see someone else in that verse. Throughout I've maintained the same thing; which you now have had to admit.

KAG:

While you may have offered Zachariah 12:10 as an allsuion to the messaiah, the verse itself still doesn't support that premise. Also, you may not have been debating the book as a whole, but the chapter as a whole does serve as context for the verse and helps put it in perspective.

Right then, could you please offer what in your context Zachariah 12:10 would be alluding to by the word 'pierced'?

KAG:

YHVH; hence metaphor.

Same question as above.

KAG:

I wan't trying to "lead the discussion to such theories"; I was simply trying provide as much information for you while supporting my allusion to the polytheistic roots of Judaism (allsuions you termed "allegations"wink. That you're non-plussed about that aspect of Judaism isn't of much concern, but that you should re-introduce your earlier point on Isaiah 9 is.

I'm not so sure what you meant by 're-introduce' my earlier point on Isaiah 9. However, I've tried to be consistent with my position on that text; and have severally called your attention to the article on the website you offered.

KAG:

Let's be clear once again, the Jewish interpretaion of Isaiah 9:6 is "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—" Some have applied a midrashic reading to it and have decided it's a messianic prophecy; however, that contention shouldn't change the common interpretation of the verse.

Leaving out the midrashic reading, if it suits your argument, would the common interpretation otherwise be different from the very same thing argued all along - that it points to the Messiah?

KAG:

It's hardly accusative to call a reference to a "Us" by a singular deity, schizophrenic. So, if you're done playing "injured party", you can actually respond to my question. Furthermore, I've tried to maintain an honest debate, even going as far as to support my "allegations". If anything, it's you that hasn't been able to keep it honest.

Your honesty is quite a queer one as you've been circling round the very affirmation of the article on the website you offered. I wasn't playing 'injured party', try as much as you may have hoped so; and better luck on that if you've been snivelling on your 'irritation' and 'getting ridiculous' earlier.

KAG:

Er, this verse 2:" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."; vs 16&17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"?

First, verse two doesn't indicate that the Spirit of God is a separate entity from God. It is, in essence, talking about the same GOd from verse 1 who created the heavens and the Earth, then moved across the face of the waters, not a separate spirit from or of that God.

I'm aware the Trinity means different things to many people; but I'm not one who assumes that God consists of separate entities. In that instance I would agree with you in that last line, that the Spirit of God is not a separate spirit from or of God. He is the very same One who created the world; the distinction being one that I'm persuaded is as borne out in my earlier rejoinder: He is the agency by which creation subsists - as would be the same thing pointed out in Psa. 104:30 - 'Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.'

KAG:

Secondly, what does the "God made"s in verses 16 and 17 have to do with the trinity?

By that I meant to offer the role of the Son who, being the Word (or, 'Logos') brings creation into existence. It is through Him that all things were made (John 1:3).

KAG:

This is getting ridiculous. What has been my difficulty in offering an interpretation? For the thrid time of asking, "I have no idea what the chapter is about "; however, being unable to offer an interpretation doesn't stop me from recognising a flawed one.

Indeed, it is true that in some instances one may readily recognize flawed interpretations that are completely off-keyed on issues discussed. However, you can only argue the case of 'flawed' interpretations where you have an alternative one to offer for consideration; rather than stating that you have no idea! That was the simple reason why I refrained and instead offered pointers such as the word 'prophecy' in Prov. 30:4.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by gracey(f): 7:16am On Mar 24, 2007
frist of all Jesus is the sun of God, and it is really clear if you read you bible constantly.
He is three in One, for example my name is Grace, I am a daughter, a mother, and a friend.
God is the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. He came into flesh as the son, and in heaven as God,and is among us as the Holy Spirit.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by texazzpete(m): 9:40am On Mar 24, 2007
WHether or not you believe Jesus Christ is God, whether or not you believe in the trinity or not, obey God's commandments and you'll go to Heaven to be with God, which is the reason we're all in this at all.

I hate it when we quibble over things that we need not quarrel over!
Love thy neighbour as thyself, and Love God above all others. If you truly Love God, you'll keep his commandments.

That's it! Whether you're Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Mormon, Anglican etc if you do that you'll be saved. I'm always surprised to see Christians engage in unnecessary arguments like "Was Christ really born on december 25th?"
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by rufflychux(m): 1:54pm On Mar 24, 2007
Not many people comprehend the Trinity concept but it holds. To start with, read 1 Timothy 3:16 which says
(1) 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: (Which means that the Godhead indeed is a mystery as opposed to many religions that say things like "Our God is not a God of confusion". It is right there, God is a God of mystery)
(2) God was manifest in the flesh (Which means that God was made flesh i.e God was made human; compare this to John 1:14 which says "T[b]he word (Jesus) was made flesh and he dwelt among us, [/b])
(3) justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles (When Jesus was on earth, he preached to the Gentiles.)

(4), believed on in the world, (Jesus was belived in the world; though not by the whole world)

(5) (God was) received up into glory. (Jesus was the one that was received up into glory).

Put all these together and you will see how true the Trinity holds.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by nazzyon(m): 5:29pm On Mar 24, 2007
Unsolved mystery
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by smile4kenn(m): 5:54am On Mar 25, 2007
JESUS IS 100% EQUAL WITH GOD The FATHER

Jesus came to earth as man and through the Virgin of virgins so that we will see him as complete man. He prayed to God as man and did everything as man so we can do same thing. He called God his father just like we do christain do today saying i am a child of God. Yes just same thing.

Trinity explains that God the Father, Jesus, Son of God, and Holy spirit is 100% equal because they make up GOd almighty.

I have studied the Trinity for so many years and i so much believe in the Trinity.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by sage(m): 11:59am On Mar 25, 2007
smile4kenn:

JESUS IS 100% EQUAL WITH GOD The FATHER

Jesus came to earth as man and through the Virgin of virgins so that we will see him as complete man. He prayed to God as man and did everything as man so we can do same thing. He called God his father just like we do christain do today saying i am a child of God. Yes just same thing.

Trinity explains that God the Father, Jesus, Son of God, and Holy spirit is 100% equal because they make up GOd almighty.

I have studied the Trinity for so many years and i so much believe in the Trinity.

Guy stop putting falsehood in Bold letters. That you believe something somebody told you does not make i true neither does it give it a biblical basis. If i get the time, il tackle this issue.

The doctrine of trinity is the biggest lie of all times.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by stimulus(m): 12:10pm On Mar 25, 2007
@sage,

sage:

The doctrine of trinity is the biggest lie of all times.

While we are waiting for your own biggest lie of the century, don't forget to include John 1:1 in your 'tackle'.
Re: Jesus: The Son Of God, Or God? by sage(m): 12:22pm On Mar 25, 2007
stimulus:

@sage,

While we are waiting for your own biggest lie of the century, don't forget to include John 1:1 in your 'tackle'.

John 1:1 original rendering cannot contradict the rest of the bible. That would make the bible a false document. But the good news is that it does not. Il be back.

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

What Are the 'Spirit/s Of Poverty'? / What The Bible Say About Muhammad / God And Natural Disaters

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 187
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.