If Jesus is God...

[Elijah John]

If Jesus is God, why didn't he spend any time or energy demonstrating this claim, or attempting to convince people?

Jesus didn't go around preaching the doctrine that he was God, nor did he attempt to prove it.

Instead, Jesus preached the Father and His mercy, repentance and the Kingdom of God. And he went around healing people. But the healings do not prove that Jesus is God, if they actually happened.

The notion that a man is God is a mighty big claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Where's the extraordinary evidence?

[tam]

Peace to you,

And yet the Teacher (Christ) whom God sent us, said that David was the one speaking. Matt 22:42-45

Peace again to you.

Just about everywhere else in the book of Psalms the only Lord that King David knew was YHVH. Jesus is not YHVH. So the Psalm makes no sense if David penned it.

I do not think that reasoning makes sense.

Even if David called the Messiah, his Lord, only once... that does not invalidate his having done so on at least one occassion. Especially not when Christ confirms this to be true - and Christ is the Teacher to whom God told us to listen (Luke 9:35).

The fact that Matthew's Jesus quoted the passage only proves that Matthew's Jesus accepted the traditional attribution of the Psalm being from David, Jesus being a man of his times, and all. Either that or Matthew, like "John" also put word's on Jesus lips, because it suited his agenda.

Every time something contradicts what you accept, you suggest that Christ is wrong, or that the author (Matthew, Mark, Luke or "John") is putting words on [Jesus] lips because it suits their agenda.


But why would Matthew have needed to put words on Christ's lips to suit some agenda... if the people of that time already believed that this passage was from David about the Christ (the Messiah)?

But context, and internal evidence contradicts "Jesus" assumption.

Stating that this is an assumption, is itself an assumption.

It would not be the first time that "Jesus" was wrong. (ref Matthew 16.28)

My Lord was not wrong.

David simply does not go around in the Psalms referring to the Messiah as his "Lord".

On at least one occasion, he does.

There was no Lord above King David except for YHVH. Not even the Messiah. The Messiah was expected to be another very human King, in the manner of King David. At best, David's equal, not his superior. David was the prototype.

This belief is one that Christ corrected. I am not sure how you continue to call him a man of his times when he corrected the teachings and beliefs of the 'men of his time'.

In fact, David was the original "Messiah"

This is not correct. Messiah means Chosen One of JAH. But if by messiah you are referring to a (hu)man chosen by God to be king of Israel, then Saul was the original.

David also called Saul, lord, so David does not have a problem calling a King (especially one chosen by God), Lord.

After this David got up and went out of the cave and called to Saul, saying, “My lord the king!� When Saul looked behind him, David put his face to the ground, showing much respect. 9 David said to Saul, “Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘David wants to hurt you’? 10 See, your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you to me today in the cave. Some told me to kill you, but I had pity on you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my leader, for he is the Lord’s chosen one.’ 1 Samuel 24:8-10

...and did not even seem to have been aware of the concept of another Messiah to come.

How does that make sense? Did David not know about Moses' writing? Was David unaware of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19?

The next Messiah was supposed to have been another David, not some supernatural "Christ".

Christ means Anointed One - which is what a chosen one IS, anointed.

That according to the Jews, who invented the concept.

A - the Jews were obviously not always correct (or even united in their beliefs). Not then and not now. God did not tell us to listen to the Jews (plural)... that would be impossible, since they are divided. He told us to listen to His Son (the Jew). See also Zechariah 8:23.

B - the Jews are only a portion of Israel, and they did not "invent" the Messiah (I assume you are not meaning to suggest that the Messiah is just a man-made concept?).

C - If the Jews could be wrong about God and what He desires, why could the Jews not be wrong in their understanding of the Messiah?

The Christian concept of the Messiah as the supernatural "Christ" is revisionist, a re-invention.

The "Christian concept" is as divided as the "Jewish concept"... in part because men are relying upon themselves or their various religions to tell them what is true. They are not listening to the One to whom God told us to listen. Only He will lead us into all truth.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 31 by tam]

I think you make some good, well reasoned points, Tammy. But remember, it was not only Jesus of Nazareth who was anointed. Prophets were routinely anointed, as were Kings. David included.

And the Messiah was indeed supposed to have been another human King, in the manner of King David. He was the prototype, not Saul. Jesus was never officially King of Israel. And in spite of Roman mockery, nor was he ever officially King of the Jews,

And Jesus, (as we have him), was indeed wrong on at least one occasion. (Matthew 16.28). And if he was wrong about predicting the timing of his return, he could easily have been wrong about his interpretation of Psalm 110.

Also, are you saying context is not important? Is it wise to build interpretations on one passage alone? The context according to the Psalms is that David's LORD was YHVH, not Jesus. I thought Evangelicals in particular always taught it is not wise to build doctrines (interpretations?) on a passage in isolation.

Also, I'm not sure why we are debating this. We both already agree that Jesus (Yahshua) is not God, right? That's really the topic of this thread. Not whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, nor whether he was the Messiah.

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

Also, I'm not sure why we are debating this. We both already agree that Jesus (Yahshua) is not God, right? That's really the topic of this thread. Not whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, nor whether he was the Messiah.

Yes, I responded only to the aside brought up in the thread. Psalm 110 is not a verse that states Christ is God (Jah). Just the opposite. I will just point out one more thing for you about those verses for now, and then leave the matter for another time/thread. Psalm 110 cannot be someone else speaking about David because David was never a priest. From verse 4: Melchizadek was both a king and a priest (a king-priest), just as Christ is both a king and a priest. David was a king, not a priest.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 8 by onewithhim]

This is an aside. But, what does Young's do with David's psalm and the "lord said to my lord"?

"The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1, Young's Literal Translation)

I'm sorry it took me several days to answer your post about Psalm 110:1. I see you found it yourself.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John] What John believed is based on what the Holy Spirit put in his heart, with the author being God. 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 explains this supernatural fact quite well. So if you have missed this basic truth, you have missed the Gospel. My question to you is if you are regenerated in Christ or Born Again? If not you will not be able to spiritually discern the Bible, based on 1 Corinthians 2:14.

So I guess I'm not clear on what your point is? You can't explain spiritual things in secular terms with finite logic. One has to make a decision on who Jesus is and what that name means to them. 2 Timothy 3:7: 'always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. If your question is sincere, then I would suggest that you are apparently spiritually searching, and or, in eternal danger.

Elijah John is as born again as you are, so don't judge him.

But you are right---it matters very much what we think of Jesus. Is he God or is he God's Son? His disciples thought he was God's Son, and Jesus himself kept saying that he was God's Son. Never God the Son. (Matthew 16:16; John 20:31; John 10:36)

[onewithhim]

And yet the Teacher (Christ) whom God sent us, said that David was the one speaking. Matt 22:42-45

Just about everywhere else in the book of Psalms the only Lord that King David knew was YHVH. Jesus is not YHVH. So the Psalm makes no sense if David penned it.

There is a fair debate about the Davidic authorship of Psalm 110. You are correct that “Lord� is used almost exclusively by David to refer to YHWH.

However, Jesus claimed that David wrote the Psalm, and the question was about what Jesus preached. So brian and Tam are correct that this is an example of Jesus preaching that he is God.

What??? How do you get that out of what Jesus said? Acts 2:34 says, "Actually, David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, 'Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."'" This was Peter talking to the people of Israel. David spoke of "my Lord," that is, David's Lord (the Messiah). Plainly, Jesus' Apostle Peter believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that Jehovah was telling him what to do.

Then at Luke 20:42 Jesus says, "For David himself says in the book of Psalms, 'Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand.'" (V.44)"David, therefore, calls him 'Lord,' so how is he his son?" How does this show that Jesus is claiming to be God?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 23 by bjs]

However, Jesus claimed that David wrote the Psalm, and the question was about what Jesus preached. So brian and Tam are correct that this is an example of Jesus preaching that he is God.

Respectfully, it is no such example.

And, I don't know about brian but do know Tam does not believe Jesus is God.
_________________

I’m not sure if just saying “no� qualifies as a meaningful response.

In the Psalm David* said that YHWH was speaking to “my (David’s) Lord.� The Messiah was called the son of David. Yet here David called the Messiah “my Lord,� giving him a title that David otherwise reserved solely for YHWH in the Psalms. Save some ad hoc response that God must have created some other “Lord� to justify the passage, the implication is that Jesus believed that David was putting the Messiah on the same level as YHWH.



*Or at least someone who Jesus said was David.

"LORD" in the Hebrew Scriptures---all upper-case letters---always refers to YHWH (Jehovah). But people don't realize this and get the Lords confused. How does this verse show that David is referring to the Messiah as God? You don't understand, apparently, that "Lord" is a title given to both God and Jesus. God's name, however, is supposed to be where LORD is, in upper-case letters, but someone REMOVED that name centuries ago. It's too bad they did, because people such as yourself can't tell the difference between Jehovah the true God and other Lords.

The way that verse should be written has been posted here many times. David was not putting the Messiah on the same level as God. Explain how that is so.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to quality]

But would advise reading the entire chapter in a contextual approach.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. (King James Version)

Reading John 1 in a contextual approach, as you suggest, would reveal that your translation is not correct because it ignores the context: Jesus (The Word) was with God so he is not God.

There are good reasons for saying that John did not mean that 'the Word' was the same as Almighty God.

First, the preceding clause ("and the Word was with God") and the following clause ("The same was in the beginning with God") both clearly state that "the Word" was "with God."

Also, the Greek word the·os - if you are able to read the Bible in Greek - occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·os is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article.

Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·os is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·os refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·os qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of "the Word."

Therefore, a number of Bible translations in English, French, and German render the text to convey the idea that "the Word" was 'a god; divine; a divine being; of divine kind; godlike' example of which are as follows (English bibles):

"and a god was the Word" (The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson)

"and the Word was divine" (The Bible - An American Translation by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to quality]

But would advise reading the entire chapter in a contextual approach.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. (King James Version)

Reading John 1 in a contextual approach, as you suggest, would reveal that your translation is not correct because it ignores the context: Jesus (The Word) was with God so he is not God.

There are good reasons for saying that John did not mean that “the Word� was the same as Almighty God.

First, the preceding clause ("and the Word was with God") and the following clause ("The same was in the beginning with God") both clearly state that “the Word� was “with God.�

Also, the Greek word the·osʹ - if you are able to read the Bible in Greek - occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·osʹ is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article.

Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·osʹ refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·osʹ qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.�

Therefore, a number of Bible translations in English, French, and German render the text to convey the idea that “the Word� was “a god; divine; a divine being; of divine kind; godlike� example of which are as follows (English bibles):

"and a god was the Word" (The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson)

"and the Word was divine" (The Bible - An American Translation by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT!!! I couldn't say it better, and I've been trying to get that point across for years.

Moffatt's translation also says: "and the Word was divine."

The Coptic Gospel of the new Testament in the Southern Dialect, Volume III, translates: "and the Word was a god."

Sahidic Coptic Text, (1700 years ago) says, literally: "In the beginning existed the word and the word existed in the presence of the god, and a god was the word."


There are more, if people wanted to do further research.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 39 by onewithhim]

Excellent work, Elijahpne!

The only exception is to the "qualitative" theory.

the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·osʹ qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.�

When all of the examples of John's constructions parallel to John 1:1c are examined and the well-known exceptions are removed, we find that all the 18 or so proper examples are indefinite ('a man,' 'a prophet,' 'a sinner,' etc.)

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html

Generally speaking, when John wants a 'qualitative' word he uses an adjective.