"I and the Father are One."

[Vic C.]

I'm speechless....

Within the same verse, you somehow manage to get two different meanings from the exact same use of "the Lamb." And this despite just saying that "the Lamb of God" is Jesus and "the Lamb" is God, which as I have pointed out, is erroneous in itself.

That is hands down some of the worst biblical interpretation I have seen. I really see no point debating with you if you are going to make up your own hermeneutics. I'll let your errors speak for themselves.

Ok, I'm speechless also. I read it, but pictured a big pretzel. No, I'm not hungry either. MM, when you are correct, I have no issues saying so. When you are incorrect, I will say so also.

That was a very twisted interpretation.

 

[Mysteryman]

I'm speechless....

Within the same verse, you somehow manage to get two different meanings from the exact same use of "the Lamb." And this despite just saying that "the Lamb of God" is Jesus and "the Lamb" is God, which as I have pointed out, is erroneous in itself.

That is hands down some of the worst biblical interpretation I have seen. I really see no point debating with you if you are going to make up your own hermeneutics. I'll let your errors speak for themselves.

Ok, I'm speechless also. I read it, but pictured a big pretzel. No, I'm not hungry either. MM, when you are correct, I have no issues saying so. When you are incorrect, I will say so also.

That was a very twisted interpretation.

Hi Vic

How may I try and untwist the pretzel for you ? :D I can not attempt to do so, unless one expresses where they find fault or a form of unexplained statements. I would be glad to give more detail if that might help.

 

[Vic C.]

Well at least supply some "salt" for us!

 

[Drew]

I can not attempt to do so, unless one expresses where they find fault or a form of unexplained statements.....

Since you are asking others to find a fault in your argument, perhaps you would care to find a fault in my argument about Jesus as fulfilling the promised return of God to the Temple?

Or in my argument about how Jesus, when facing Caiaphus, sets himself in the position of the "son of man" figure from Daniel 7 who shares God's throne?

Or in my argument about how Jesus tells Caiaphus that He (Jesus) will be seated at God's right hand;

Or in my argument about Jesus setting Himself in the role of God returning to a Jerusalem that has "missed" its time of divine visitation?

Or in my argument about how Jesus sets Himself in the same role of a "mother hen" to Israel as does God the Father?

Or in my argument about, in the parable of the returning King (Luke 19), Jesus sets Himself in the role of God returning to judge Israel?

 

[Mysteryman]

Well at least supply some "salt" for us!

Would you like a Beer to go along with that ?

 

[Oats]

@ MM

You ignored several of my post....I sense some partiality
You make some good points...But they aren't always in sway with scripture

 

[Pard]

You make some good points...But they aren't always in sway with scripture

How can they be good points if they are twisted words of scripture?

 

[Mysteryman]

You make some good points...But they aren't always in sway with scripture

How can they be good points if they are twisted words of scripture?

Hi Pard and Oats :

We were taking about if Jesus was King of kings and Lord of lords. I have given scriptural evidence that Jesus is not King of kings and Lord of lords, because he will be subject unto God. The One who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords can not be subject unto none. This is why the title of he who is King of kings and Lord of lords can not be subject unto none. I Corinth 15:28 is clear, that Jesus is going to be subject unto God.

 

[Oats]

You make some good points...But they aren't always in sway with scripture

How can they be good points if they are twisted words of scripture?

Hi Pard and Oats :

We were taking about if Jesus was King of kings and Lord of lords. I have given scriptural evidence that Jesus is not King of kings and Lord of lords, because he will be subject unto God. The One who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords can not be subject unto none. This is why the title of he who is King of kings and Lord of lords can not be subject unto none. I Corinth 15:28 is clear, that Jesus is going to be subject unto God.

I said not always on point with scripture....Like this one. There are some time when you use valid points to promote invalid ones.

If you're not gonna answer my questions MM...don't bother responding

 

[Vic C.]

You make some good points...But they aren't always in sway with scripture

How can they be good points if they are twisted words of scripture?

I said not always on point with scripture....Like this one. There are some time when you use valid points to promote invalid ones.

If you're not gonna answer my questions MM...don't bother responding

I'm inline with Pard on this. I made the same mistake once. I praised someone, saying they made good points, but that they weren't in line with the whole of scripture.

 

[Mysteryman]

None of these posters have made their case ! None !

You would think that they would try, or at least make some reference to the subject at hand. I at least give Free some credit, even though he fell short of his goal.

But these last three posts are what are called -- dead end posts.

No substance , only accusation .

 

[Drew]

None of these posters have made their case ! None !

You would think that they would try, or at least make some reference to the subject at hand. I at least give Free some credit, even though he fell short of his goal.

But these last three posts are what are called -- dead end posts.

No substance , only accusation .

In all candor, are you serious?

Again, in all candor, I trust that you do realize that intentional misrepresentations of the truth are not the gospel way. Even though "this is just a forum", do you not have any concern about being held to account for your misrepresentations?

And now for a fact, that can be verified by examing this, and related, threads.

I have presented a number of detailed arguments that make the case that Jesus should be understood as the embodiment of Israel's God.

Despite being repeatedly challenged to do so, you have simply refused to actually engage those arguments.

So please - do not insult our intelligence - cases have indeed been made.

 

[Pard]

MM,

Free and I have provided two separate pieces of scripture that readily support our view. You attempted to make an analogy to dissuade my line of scripture and I showed how you were wrong.

Unlike the rest of these fine gentlemen, I do not have the care to keep on listing evidence for my claim to someone who cannot answer previous pieces of evidence.

 

[Mysteryman]

MM,

Free and I have provided two separate pieces of scripture that readily support our view. You attempted to make an analogy to dissuade my line of scripture and I showed how you were wrong.

Unlike the rest of these fine gentlemen, I do not have the care to keep on listing evidence for my claim to someone who cannot answer previous pieces of evidence.

Hi Pard :

I not only gave answers, I gave explicit replies.

I am the one who brought Rev. 19:16 to the conversation, and you claimed that this verse proved your theory that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I asked you to prove it. And if you can remember , I gave you my examples as to why he could not be king of kings and lord of lords.

As of yet, you have not provided any proof, other than your own words which stated that this proves your belief.

Now I know you are a young man and still learning. And I also know you are a very intellectual young man. So in no way do I want to demean you , or make you look as if you havn't done your homework.

But you have to try and realize, that you stating your belief, is not sufficent to defending or proving your beleif.

I have given you many verses that defend my position and stance. I am waiting for you to do the same.

Remember, this is not something I am demanding of you, nor do you have to defend your beliefs if you wish not too.

Also remember, that there are going to be many who will agree with you, but on that same note, there will also be some that will disagree with what you say. At the very least, one has to set forth a foundation by which you draw your beliefs from.

Take care - MM

 

[Drew]

MM: You continue to ignore arguments that challenge your position.

Please engage my argument about Jesus as fulfilling the promised return of God to the Temple?

Or my argument about how Jesus, when facing Caiaphus, sets himself in the position of the "son of man" figure from Daniel 7 who shares God's throne?

Or my argument about how Jesus tells Caiaphus that He (Jesus) will be seated at God's right hand;

Or my argument about Jesus setting Himself in the role of God returning to a Jerusalem that has "missed" its time of divine visitation?

Or my argument about how Jesus sets Himself in the same role of a "mother hen" to Israel as does God the Father?

Or in my argument about, in the parable of the returning King (Luke 19), Jesus sets Himself in the role of God returning to judge Israel?

 

[Free]

I not only gave answers, I gave explicit replies.

I am the one who brought Rev. 19:16 to the conversation, and you claimed that this verse proved your theory that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I asked you to prove it. And if you can remember , I gave you my examples as to why he could not be king of kings and lord of lords.

As of yet, you have not provided any proof, other than your own words which stated that this proves your belief.
...
But you have to try and realize, that you stating your belief, is not sufficent to defending or proving your beleif.

I have given you many verses that defend my position and stance. I am waiting for you to do the same.

MM,

I have seen nothing but your opinion and evasiveness of several strong arguments. Revelation clearly states that the Lamb is the King of kings and Lord of lords and you have provided nothing to refute that other than an extremely poor exegesis based entirely on your opinion and not on proper biblical interpretation.

You have given nothing that supports your position thus far and if you want people to defend their position with Scripture, I strongly suggest you do the same, beginning with just one of the many strong points made by Drew. It is completely unfair, and very poor debate practice, to ask others to defend their position and then ignore them when they do.

 

[zworld]

Jesus said:

“I and the Father are one.†John 10:30 RSV

Is this helpful in understanding who Jesus is?

According to the prophecies the Messiah comes from the tribe of Judah. In ancient Jewish tradition Jewishness (in the religious sense) was passed on to the child through the mother since she taught her children while the father was earning a living, and tribal membership was inherited from the father through direct blood line. Adoption did not provide a child with tribal membership. Therefore, the child of a Jewish father and Gentile woman was not considered Jewish until the age of adulthood when the child took on Torah obedience, and the child of a Gentile man and Jewish woman had no tribal membership.

There is the story when the son of an Egyptian man and Jewish woman is angry. You do not find out the reason for his anger except for from the oral Law of Judaism. He is angry because he realises he had no tribal inheritance even though his mother was a Jew. The oral Law gives explanation to the written Law.

Lev 24:10 Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel quarreled in the camp, Lev 24:11 and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed.

So, if Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, he doesn't belong to the tribe of Judah and therefore, do not qualify to be the Messiah. You cannot argue that Jesus inherited tribal membership through her mother, first of all, because of the above reason, secondly, because we do not know her lineage. The only thing we know about Mary is that her cousin, Elizabeth, was the daughter of Aaron, that is, she might have been a Levite.

You cannot build doctrine on highly symbolic passages.

 

[Vic C.]

Jesus is a direct descendant of the Most High.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus Himself said this:

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

 

[rcbako]

We should not be confused when Jesus said the He and the Father is one. Jesus is referred as Father of heaven and earth because he created it under the direction of his Father. They are one in purpose, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

[Regnaston]

I have not read the whole thread.. but I would like to add this to the discussion (as it seems this thread is questioning the Deity of Christ)

In Deuteronomy 6:4 it says "O Hear oh Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is One" .. it seems support a non trinity viewpoint and/or a denial of the Deity of Christ.. However if you look at the Hebrew (transliterated text )

Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.

Hear Israel (the)Lord our God (the) Lord is One


Eloheinu is a Plural word in itself.. and Echad is a word that denotes unity


See this link for more info about the word Echad Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad