Misunderstand by Jws and Protestants

[Rodger]

We can quote the Bible that says Jesus is the Christ, but there isn't a quote about being God in the flesh. So why would you said I don't believe Jesus is the Christ? Being Christ doesn't require being God. God was the one who made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36.


Yes I am born again. I understand the Bible just fine.


Your stated opinion is that I reject what God did in Jesus for me. While I am sure that's what you believe, that isn't what I believe. You're taking this from the perspective of a Trinitarian. I am obviously not going to see here and nod my head in agreement with your claims that I am not born again or that I have an inability to understand theology.

So far, I have merely been having a conversation with you.


So is Mary the mother of God?

Luke 1
43And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Same thing applies to normal Christians.

Ephesians 3
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

And yet, God isn't a nature or essence. Having the divine nature is not the same thing as being God or else Christians also become God. This problem goes away when you realize Jesus isn't even himself God.

2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

What do you mean by "in" three co-equal persons? Is God in them or is one or all of them God? Is God a person or an it in your perspective?


No I don't believe that. I believe the only true God is the Father and Jesus is His Son. The Holy Spirit isn't another person in addition to the Father, but is the Father. Isn't the Father both holy and Spirit? That makes Him the Holy Spirit.

Seems too simple right? Well, it's powerfully simple. There is not more than one Holy Spirit God in the Bible, yet the Father is the holy Spirit. Think about it.


I wouldn't bother with modalism, but theoretically God can take on any mode He wishes can't He? It's one of those not so easily falsified beliefs because it's plausible, but not what is really described of God in the Bible.

So what is your belief about John 17:3? Do you believe it?

What good would it do to quote any Scriptures for you. YOU have already decided what you want to believe.

I will post what I have already posted which was hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of God’s Son: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). We have discussed that now about 3 times

When the angel spoke to Joseph and announced the impending birth of Jesus, he alluded to Isaiah’s prophecy: "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God with us’)" (Matthew 1:23). This did not mean they were to name the baby Immanuel; it meant that "God with us" was the baby’s identity. Jesus was God coming in the flesh to dwell with man.

Jesus Himself understood the speculation about His identity. He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27). The answers varied, as they do today. Then Jesus asked a more pressing question: "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). Peter gave the right answer: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus affirmed the truth of Peter’s answer and promised that, upon that truth, He would build His church (Matthew 16:18).

In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

But again, you have already decided to reject all of that.

Now friend, I do not know you and I do not mean to hurt you or anger you, but to say that you are "born again" and in the same breath say that you deny the Trinity is not possible. I would say to you that youe are very deceived.

Over the years I have talked to many Mormons and JW's and what you are saying I have all heard before.

There are some things that are essential in the Christian life that we must accept and believe in order to be born again.

One of those is the "Virgin Birth".
Another is that Jeus is God in the flesh.
Another is the Trinity.

To deny those "essentials" then is simultaneously denying the deity of Christ, and also the Trinity. Such a person betrays the fact that they do not understand the gospel, and therefore cannot have truly been saved.

God bless you my friend!

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger

I am going to encourage you to do as I do. Go to the Lord and ask Him, through the power of His Spirit within you, to give you understanding of the things that you're reading. Pray diligently. Just throw out all that you have believed for one hour and ask the Lord to give you understanding. I have given you the proof that it was a regular practice in the synagogue for a rabbi to quote a few words of Scripture. As the information that I sent you explains. The Jewish people, especially the rabbis knew the Scriptures well enough that they could find parts of the Scriptures in this way. Do you deny that's how rabbis taught in ancient Israel?

If so, then I'd say you're not really well versed in 'how' the synagogue teachings were handled before there were chapter and verse divisions in the Scriptures. If not, then I'd really encourage you to just take it up with the Lord. Surely you have read:

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

Go ahead! Put God to the test in this. Trust me, He gives generously to all without finding fault.

Just as I wrote to you before about the anointing of Jesus. I went to the Lord and beseeched Him for understanding. And lo and behold, He put a response in front of me within 3 days of my asking. You might also do some google research and find some others who have worked this particular conundrum, because everyone thinks it strange that God would forsake His Son. It's one of the most common questions about this particular passage. Why did God forsake His Son. I believe that the truth is that He didn't. He promised He wouldn't.

Psalms 37:28
For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed ; the offspring of the wicked will perish.

Psalms 94:14
14 For the LORD will not reject his people; he will never forsake his inheritance.

God bless,
Ted

My friend, my theological understanding should not be an issue. I would in no way ever lay aside what I have learned to try and understand someone that I do not know on the internet to follow his opinions.

I have already given you the reason why God did not forsake His Son. Why are we still talking about it????

At this point I really do not know what your agenda is.

What in fact are you trying to say???

 

[miamited]

Interesting, but who or what is being called the most holy though? That part still seems vague to me. Who or what do you think is being anointed and by whom?

Hi Runningman

Jesus. He is God's anointed One. And the woman at Simon's house accomplished that task.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Rodger]

I asked you about this

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut.24:16 KJV

and asked you to look at Ezekiel 18. Tell me what is God saying in these passages?

Glad to do that. Now because YOU do not believe in substitutionary atonement, you are asking a redundant question. When I give you the answer you have already decided to respond with.......
"Then how could Jesus be put to death for humanity".

But we will proceed because you asked.

The law was given from God so that In the eyes of the LORD, to kill an innocent son of a sinful father would be the same as charging an innocent person unjustly with a crime deserving of the death penalty. God gave each person the ability to choose, and each person is to bear the consequence of their own choices.
Moses forbade the Israelites from punishing one family member for the actions committed by another member of his family. There were to be no blood feuds. Families were not to be held responsible. Individuals were to be held responsible.

I do not know if you are aware, but Muslims see this Scripture mush as you do.
They say and believe that this scripture as confirming their beliefs and proving that Christianity is wrong. They understand these verses to mean that each person can only bear their own sin and that therefore Jesus cannot die for our sins. Isn't that what you are implying?????
Deuteronomy 24:16 is part of the Torah itself and Ezekiel 18:20 is addressing the Israelites who were living under the Torah. That is, the context of these verses is the Torah and not the Qur'an. If we want to understand the verses we need to understand some basics about the Torah.

When somebody living under the Torah sinned they were responsible for what they had done, but if they repented they could be forgiven by a sacrifice that would bear their sin before God. The Torah explains this.

The Torah teaches individual responsibility and forgiveness through a substitute sacrifice that bears our sin.

In the book of the prophet Ezekiel we see this idea as well.

(The priests) will put the most holy offerings (there) - the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings - for the place is holy. (Ezekiel 42:13, )

The verses in question are not saying there is no sacrifice that can bear our sin. Instead they are saying that we are individually responsible for our sins and need to seek forgiveness through God's provision of a substitute sacrifice that can bear our sin. These verses do not support the idea that there is no substitutionary atonment for sin at all, instead they confirm what Christianity teaches.

 

[miamited]

Hi Rodger

You said.....
"Were you able to put together the Scriptures that show that David's clothing was divided by lot? How about that his hands and feet were pierced? Or maybe you found where he suffered some agonizing death that caused his tongue to be stuck to the roof of his mouth because of his dehydration? How about when men were standing around David in some terrible agony of his life and mocked him and said to David or those around him, "He trusted in God. Let God come down and save him."

No, absolutely not. You brought up this matter of a prophecy having a near fulfillment and a far. Since the only prophecy that we've been discussing here is the one that David wrote that we account as Psalm 22. I thought you were saying that somehow David had fulfilled this prophecy in the near term of his writing it, but then it was also to be fulfilled again at some future date. Did I misunderstand your words?

Ted, All of the prophets did what was called....."Near and Far" prophecies. The "near" were the ones that were meant for the people that the prophet ministered to. He spoke the Word of God as if it was God speaking for a specific purpose. A prophecy is made, and the first fulfillment comes to pass relatively soon thereafter. Later, there is a second fulfillment to the prophecy, and that second fulfillment is usually fuller and more literal. So, there is a “near” fulfillment and a “far” fulfillment. A prophecy having a dual fulfillment helps to unify Scripture and emphasizes God’s masterful control of events. There are several examples of prophecies with a double fulfillment.

So I followed up and asked of you. How was this prophecy that we are speaking of fulfilled among the "people that the prophet ministered to"? That's all.

I have already given you the reason why God did not forsake His Son.

Good, then we are in agreement that Jesus was either referring those around him as he died to David's psalm, or he's a liar. He cried out that God had forsaken him, but we both now agree that God hadn't.

Got it.

I'm sorry that my words are confusing to you.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger

Well, of course he did. I don't think that either of us are arguing that he didn't mean to say what he said. We're differing over the 'why' he said it.

And again, I have no idea how that applies to this discussion. I'm not arguing any of that. I'm merely arguing that when Jesus cried out, "My God, my God..." That he wasn't being forsaken, he was drawing the Jewish people around him to find and read and understand where those words were written in the Scriptures and what they revealed in that Psalm. Yes he was condemned to bear its curse. But God didn't forsake him for doing exactly what God had set as His plan and working out of our salvation.

And why would that matter, if Jesus was giving a teaching about the things that they were standing there doing and seeing?

Look, I get that you trust in your fine knowledge and education, just as I believe that I have knowledge of the Scriptures, so to do you. But there is a truth. And I'm asking you to show me how David fulfilled some 'near' prophecy that is written in Psalm 22. Can you? Where's your evidence that any of those things that are written in the first eighteen verses of this Psalm of David, happened to David. Show me the 'near' fulfillment of the first eighteen verses.

God bless,
Ted

You said........
"That he wasn't being forsaken, he was drawing the Jewish people around him to find and read and understand where those words were written in the Scriptures and what they revealed in that Psalm. "

Now the literal words in Scripture from God say...."My God My God, why have you FORSAKEN me".
Jesus said ..."Why have you FORSAKEN me".

That means literally that Jesus said He felt forsaken. I do not for the life of me understand why you believe He was trying to impress the Jewish people around Him.

My dear friend, there were NO Jews around Him when He said that. There were only four women.

Psalms 22:1
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

These words of David are the same words uttered by Jesus as he was dying on the cross. For as it is written in the Gospel of Matthew 27:46.....
“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’”

We can see in the first prophecy of Psalm 22, that David and Jesus are literally speaking the same language. These words of David foretell the story of Christ nearly a millennium before it was to come to pass.

So we have a Psalm, which represents less than one percent of one book of scripture, which itself is less than three percent of the Old Testament, yet we found at least five clear prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. This example would suggest that there are seemingly hundreds of ways in which Jesus fulfills thousands of years of scripture. All of these connections, synchronicities, and “coincidences” are just too much for any logical person to ignore.

 

[miamited]

Hi Rodger

That means literally that Jesus said He felt forsaken.

And yet you just responed to me

I have already given you the reason why God did not forsake His Son.

Now the literal words in Scripture from God say...."My God My God, why have you FORSAKEN me".
Jesus said ..."Why have you FORSAKEN me".

I honestly have no idea what translation you're reading, but Jesus is claimed to have cried out: "Eloi, Eloi. Lama Sabathani." Then the writer translates that for us as "My God, my God (Eloi, Eloi) Lama Sabathani (why have you forsaken me).

Go your way friend. I'm apparently confusing you.

God bless you,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again Rodger

Just a word of instruction on how you can use the quote function on this site.

When someone posts a 2-3 or more questions, I generally won't go more than four at a time, you can highlight just the one question and click on the quote button in the lower right hand corner of the post. Then you can go down to start a new post and you will find button now under your new post on the left hand side that says "insert quotes" and just that single part that you highlighted will be posted in your new response post. You can then give all of your resources to answering that question.

When you've exhausted your response to that singular question, you can scroll back up to the poster with all the questions and highlight the next question, hit the quote button in the right hand lower corner again. Scroll back down to the post that you've already started with your answer to their first question. Click the cursor so that it's at the end of what's already been written and look down again and you'll see the "insert quotes" and push that button again.

This will post the second question that you highlighted and you can again write your exhaustive answer to question number two.

Repeat as necessary until you have answered any outstanding question that you feel needs your response. Or you can use the multi-quote function although I find that harder because often my answers get mixed up with the quote box.

God bless you and I hope this helps.
Ted

 

[Runningman]

What good would it do to quote any Scriptures for you. YOU have already decided what you want to believe.

I will post what I have already posted which was hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of God’s Son: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). We have discussed that now about 3 times

Thanks, but will you accept that Isaiah 9:6 never happened in the Bible? He wasn't called those things. I would even go so far as to say Jesus denied being the "Everlasting Father." Did he say, while still on Earth, to not call anyone on Earth your father? Matthew 23:9.

My perspective on Isaiah 9:6 is that it isn't a good translation.

When the angel spoke to Joseph and announced the impending birth of Jesus, he alluded to Isaiah’s prophecy: "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God with us’)" (Matthew 1:23). This did not mean they were to name the baby Immanuel; it meant that "God with us" was the baby’s identity. Jesus was God coming in the flesh to dwell with man.

That doesn't mean Jesus is the God with us because Acts 10:38 says God was with Jesus. So, the name just refers to God being with Jesus and then, in turn, as Jesus accompanied the people of Israel, God was by extension with them as well.

Besides, the name of someone doesn't mean that is what they literally are. For example, we know Jesus' name isn't even Jesus actually, but Yehoshua, Yahushua, Yeshua, Yahsua or some variation of that and it means "YHWH will save" but Jesus isn't YHWH.

Why? Because other people were also named after YHWH in the Bible such as Abijah who's name means "my father is YHWH" or Adonijah who's name means "YHWH is the Lord." You can also check out Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jedediah, Jeremiah, etc. There are a lot of people who have names that mean something who aren't God therefore Jesus isn't suddenly an exception to this.

Jesus Himself understood the speculation about His identity. He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27). The answers varied, as they do today. Then Jesus asked a more pressing question: "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). Peter gave the right answer: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus affirmed the truth of Peter’s answer and promised that, upon that truth, He would build His church (Matthew 16:18).

Wonderful, Jesus the Son of the living God. Therefore, Jesus isn't the Living God. The Living God is the True God, the Father, and Jesus is His Son. They are not the same person.

1 Thessalonians 1:9,10 refers the Father as the " living and true God" and then to Jesus as His Son. Therefore Jesus isn't the True God.

In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

Refers to seeing in the sense of knowing as opposed to being blind and not knowing. John 14:7 thusly says, "If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

But again, you have already decided to reject all of that.

To be clear, I accept the entire Bible, but I reject Trinitarianism.

Now friend, I do not know you and I do not mean to hurt you or anger you, but to say that you are "born again" and in the same breath say that you deny the Trinity is not possible. I would say to you that youe are very deceived.

Over the years I have talked to many Mormons and JW's and what you are saying I have all heard before.

There are some things that are essential in the Christian life that we must accept and believe in order to be born again.

One of those is the "Virgin Birth".
Another is that Jeus is God in the flesh.
Another is the Trinity.

Don't worry, I am fine. If I didn't know what the Bible actually said then maybe you would gotten me, but the weakness of what you're saying is that it just isn't Biblical. So what does John 1:12,13 say?

"But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God."

And do I receive and believe in God and His Son Jesus? Do I receive them and know them both? Why yes of course.

To deny those "essentials" then is simultaneously denying the deity of Christ, and also the Trinity. Such a person betrays the fact that they do not understand the gospel, and therefore cannot have truly been saved.

God bless you my friend!

Where does the Bible say to believe these things to be saved? When you find them let me know.

"One of those is the "Virgin Birth".
Another is that Jesus is God in the flesh.
Another is the Trinity."

 

[Rodger]

Thanks, but will you accept that Isaiah 9:6 never happened in the Bible? He wasn't called those things. I would even go so far as to say Jesus denied being the "Everlasting Father." Did he say, while still on Earth, to not call anyone on Earth your father? Matthew 23:9.

My perspective on Isaiah 9:6 is that it isn't a good translation.


That doesn't mean Jesus is the God with us because Acts 10:38 says God was with Jesus. So, the name just refers to God being with Jesus and then, in turn, as Jesus accompanied the people of Israel, God was by extension with them as well.

Besides, the name of someone doesn't mean that is what they literally are. For example, we know Jesus' name isn't even Jesus actually, but Yehoshua, Yahushua, Yeshua, Yahsua or some variation of that and it means "YHWH will save" but Jesus isn't YHWH.

Why? Because other people were also named after YHWH in the Bible such as Abijah who's name means "my father is YHWH" or Adonijah who's name means "YHWH is the Lord." You can also check out Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jedediah, Jeremiah, etc. There are a lot of people who have names that mean something who aren't God therefore Jesus isn't suddenly an exception to this.


Wonderful, Jesus the Son of the living God. Therefore, Jesus isn't the Living God. The Living God is the True God, the Father, and Jesus is His Son. They are not the same person.

1 Thessalonians 1:9,10 refers the Father as the " living and true God" and then to Jesus as His Son. Therefore Jesus isn't the True God.


Refers to seeing in the sense of knowing as opposed to being blind and not knowing. John 14:7 thusly says, "If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”


To be clear, I accept the entire Bible, but I reject Trinitarianism.


Don't worry, I am fine. If I didn't know what the Bible actually said then maybe you would gotten me, but the weakness of what you're saying is that it just isn't Biblical. So what does John 1:12,13 say?

"But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God."

And do I receive and believe in God and His Son Jesus? Do I receive them and know them both? Why yes of course.


Where does the Bible say to believe these things to be saved? When you find them let me know.

"One of those is the "Virgin Birth".
Another is that Jesus is God in the flesh.
Another is the Trinity."

You said........
"My perspective on Isaiah 9:6 is that it isn't a good translation."
Then I suggest that you change your perspective.

Then, again, not to be judgmental, but according to YOUR own words is why I said that you are not born again.

At its core, being born again means having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and experiencing a spiritual transformation. According to the Bible, being born again involves repentance, belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God in the flesh to pay for your sins, and a commitment to follow Him.

By your own words, you have denied that. So then, instead of spending your time trying to tell others on the internet of your being deceived, spend that time in the Word of God to learn that Jeus is God in the flesh and that He died to set you free from your sins.

 

[Rodger]

Hi again Rodger

Just a word of instruction on how you can use the quote function on this site.

When someone posts a 2-3 or more questions, I generally won't go more than four at a time, you can highlight just the one question and click on the quote button in the lower right hand corner of the post. Then you can go down to start a new post and you will find button now under your new post on the left hand side that says "insert quotes" and just that single part that you highlighted will be posted in your new response post. You can then give all of your resources to answering that question.

When you've exhausted your response to that singular question, you can scroll back up to the poster with all the questions and highlight the next question, hit the quote button in the right hand lower corner again. Scroll back down to the post that you've already started with your answer to their first question. Click the cursor so that it's at the end of what's already been written and look down again and you'll see the "insert quotes" and push that button again.

This will post the second question that you highlighted and you can again write your exhaustive answer to question number two.

Repeat as necessary until you have answered any outstanding question that you feel needs your response. Or you can use the multi-quote function although I find that harder because often my answers get mixed up with the quote box.

God bless you and I hope this helps.
Ted

You are speaking to an old man who hates the computer. I just got a cell phone 2 years ago so that my wife could come and get me when I get lost...LOL!

I just rspond to ONE question at a time and if the one asking does not want to do that, then I can not help them.

But thanks for the info.

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger

And yet you just responed to me


I honestly have no idea what translation you're reading, but Jesus is claimed to have cried out: "Eloi, Eloi. Lama Sabathani." Then the writer translates that for us as "My God, my God (Eloi, Eloi) Lama Sabathani (why have you forsaken me).

Go your way friend. I'm apparently confusing you.

God bless you,
Ted

I am sorry you think I am confused. I guess that is my fault in trying to grasp your posts.

KJ21
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

ASV
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

AMP
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud [agonized] voice, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

AMPC
And about the ninth hour (three o’clock) Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?—that is, My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me [leaving Me helpless, forsaking and failing Me in My need]?

BRG
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

CSB
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”

However....in the NKJV of Matthew 27:46-47 we see...........
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!"

So we see from the Scriptures, those present did not understand what He said.

According to a number of internet sites, including Wikipedia, the saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" or in Mark's version it is......."Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" which was originally Aramaic: אלהי אלהי למא שבקתני.
(Courtesy of Wikipedia)

However, according to some other sites it is Hebrew.

Regardless of which is right, I don't think it can be denied that the Jews mistook what he said. I used to take this to mean that he was speaking in a language they did not understand. However, as far as I know and have learned, Jews at that time spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic (plus some Greek, and perhaps Latin).

How, then, did the Jews mistake his meaning?

The popular option is that the crowd heard Jesus alright but seized on the opportunity to mock Jesus. In this view, the crowd was referencing the same Messianic prophecy of Malachi 4:5, but were essentially saying "even Jesus realizes the prophecy was not fulfilled."
Source: Barnes' Notes writes:

"The taunt would be more cutting, because it was the universal belief of the Jews, as well as the doctrine of Christ, that "Elias" would come before the Messiah. They derided him now, as calling upon "Elias" when God would not help him; still keeping up the pretensions to being the Messiah, and invoking "Elijah" to come from the dead to aid him."

 

[Free]

Not to quibble, but didn't Isaiah directly say he would be "called" those names? Well, I am going to hold Isaiah to that and never back down.

Okay, so what does Isaiah mean by "his name"? What does Isaiah mean by "called"? And are they names or are they titles? You're making a number of assumptions about what Isaiah is saying, but this requires deeper study.

I do believe Isaiah is a bonafide prophet of God and I don't blame him for his prophecy apparently not finding a fulfillment based on some of the translations that came after him.

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

Let's look at what the NT says:

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, (ESV)

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)

Much of Jesus's ministry was counseling and guiding his followers. That the titles "Wonderful" and "Counselor" or "Wonderful Counselor" can be applied to him really goes without saying.


Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (ESV)

* What does your version of the LXX give for Isa. 7:14?

And, of course, we must add to that John 1:1-18; 8:24, 58; 18:5-6; 20:28; Acts 3:15; Rom 9:5; 10:9-13; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:15-17; and Heb 1:1-3, 10-12. Those are just some of the verses showing that Jesus is God.


We know that "Everlasting Father," or "Father of Eternity," has no bearing on the three persons of the Trinity and the first person being the Father. We also know that the Son is eternal, being truly God, and was the agent of creation. So, the only thing to understand is the use of "Father." Things to consider are the use of Father (in relation to God) in the OT and, in the NT, what it means to be a father.

In the OT, God was, in a general sense, the Father of all people as their Creator (Father of Eternity), and in particular, a Father to his chosen people. He cared for, guided, and protected the Israelites. That's what fathers do. It also has a reference to God being the redeemer and Saviour, which clearly has application to Jesus being the redeemer and Saviour. So, when we look at Jesus, there are numerous examples of his care and guidance of both the Jews and all people generally, and his followers specifically.

Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (ESV)

We also need to take this into account:

Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Is Jesus the Father, the first person of the Trinity? Of course not. However, he cared for, guided, and protected his followers, revealed the indwelling Father, and is the Saviour. He did the things a father does and the things the Father does. And, importantly, he was the agent of creation, being in a true sense the "Father of Eternity."


Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
Heb 7:2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.
...
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
Heb 7:15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek,
Heb 7:16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
Heb 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” (ESV)

Luk 19:37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
Luk 19:38 "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Luk 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
Luk 19:40 "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." (ESV)

Luk 24:36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” (ESV)

Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (ESV)

Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (ESV)

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Eph 2:17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (ESV)

There are numerous uses of peace related to Jesus throughout the NT. Clearly the title "Prince of Peace" can be applied to Jesus.

Isaiah 9:6 from the LXX doesn't fail.

Again, that is one English translation of many from one version of the LXX of many.

 

[Rodger]

Okay, so what does Isaiah mean by "his name"? What does Isaiah mean by "called"? And are they names or are they titles? You're making a number of assumptions about what Isaiah is saying, but this requires deeper study.


Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

Let's look at what the NT says:

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, (ESV)

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)

Much of Jesus's ministry was counseling and guiding his followers. That the titles "Wonderful" and "Counselor" or "Wonderful Counselor" can be applied to him really goes without saying.


Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (ESV)

* What does your version of the LXX give for Isa. 7:14?

And, of course, we must add to that John 1:1-18; 8:24, 58; 18:5-6; 20:28; Acts 3:15; Rom 9:5; 10:9-13; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:15-17; and Heb 1:1-3, 10-12. Those are just some of the verses showing that Jesus is God.


We know that "Everlasting Father," or "Father of Eternity," has no bearing on the three persons of the Trinity and the first person being the Father. We also know that the Son is eternal, being truly God, and was the agent of creation. So, the only thing to understand is the use of "Father." Things to consider are the use of Father (in relation to God) in the OT and, in the NT, what it means to be a father.

In the OT, God was, in a general sense, the Father of all people as their Creator (Father of Eternity), and in particular, a Father to his chosen people. He cared for, guided, and protected the Israelites. That's what fathers do. It also has a reference to God being the redeemer and Saviour, which clearly has application to Jesus being the redeemer and Saviour. So, when we look at Jesus, there are numerous examples of his care and guidance of both the Jews and all people generally, and his followers specifically.

Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (ESV)

We also need to take this into account:

Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Is Jesus the Father, the first person of the Trinity? Of course not. However, he cared for, guided, and protected his followers, revealed the indwelling Father, and is the Saviour. He did the things a father does and the things the Father does. And, importantly, he was the agent of creation, being in a true sense the "Father of Eternity."


Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
Heb 7:2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.
...
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
Heb 7:15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek,
Heb 7:16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
Heb 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” (ESV)

Luk 19:37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
Luk 19:38 "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Luk 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
Luk 19:40 "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." (ESV)

Luk 24:36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” (ESV)

Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (ESV)

Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (ESV)

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Eph 2:17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (ESV)

There are numerous uses of peace related to Jesus throughout the NT. Clearly the title "Prince of Peace" can be applied to Jesus.


Again, that is one English translation of many from one version of the LXX of many.

I love it when plan comes together!

It is clear that you are well versed in the Word of God!

May I add that the Hebrew phrase translated “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6 could be translated literally “Father of Eternity.”

In context, Isaiah 9:6 is proclaiming the redemption of Israel and the activities, titles, and blessings of the Messiah who is to rule the earth and usher in a reign of blessing and peace that will have no end. One of His titles is “Everlasting Father.”

It seems to me that those who do not believe that Jesus is God in the flesh can not then also accept that He is the father of time and eternity, the “architect of the ages.”

While we know this to be true from the New Testament as written in John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17, that is not the emphasis in Isaiah.

In the Hebrew construction of the phrase, father is the primary noun, and everlasting (ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJV ASV) or eternal (NASB) is the term that describes His fatherhood. He is Father forever.

Excellent post and I agree with you.

 

[miamited]

Hey Rodger

You are speaking to an old man who hates the computer. I just got a cell phone 2 years ago so that my wife could come and get me when I get lost...LOL!

Well, I'm glad that you have joined in with us. I'm 68 myself and came to trust the testimony of Jesus at the ripe old age of 40. I see you're from Deland. A dear friend of mine used to live in Deland and I lived in Sanford for a short time when I first moved to Florida back in the 80's. I'm now settled to live out the remaining years that God has accounted for me here in a small town in the upstate of South Carolina.

And I'm sorry for causing confusion, but I still respectfully submit that you're mistaken in this.

Ok, one question at a time.

Now the literal words in Scripture from God say...."My God My God, why have you FORSAKEN me".
Jesus said ..."Why have you FORSAKEN me".

What is different about those two statements that you've posted?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Runningman]

You said........
"My perspective on Isaiah 9:6 is that it isn't a good translation."
Then I suggest that you change your perspective.

I recommend you change your perspective and stop telling people to believe Jesus is God in the flesh when you can’t quote a single verse that says such.

Then, again, not to be judgmental, but according to YOUR own words is why I said that you are not born again.

That isn’t why you said you believe I am not born again. You said I am born again because I don’t believe what you feel I am required to believe.

At its core, being born again means having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and experiencing a spiritual transformation. According to the Bible, being born again involves repentance, belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God,

I’ve done that.

God in the flesh to pay for your sins,

Not according to scripture.

and a commitment to follow Him.

Did that.

By your own words, you have denied that.

That would be a straw man argument at this point. I just told you I believe in the Son of God and have repented of my sins and I follow him. I’m born again.

So then, instead of spending your time trying to tell others on the internet of your being deceived, spend that time in the Word of God to learn that Jeus is God in the flesh and that He died to set you free from your sins.

I spend time in the Bible and prayer every day. It seems you have this story about me being some kind non-believer who never reads the Bible. I am not perfect, but I am a devout Christian.

But Jesus isn’t God. Jesus is God’s Son. Do you deny Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[Runningman]

Okay, so what does Isaiah mean by "his name"? What does Isaiah mean by "called"? And are they names or are they titles? You're making a number of assumptions about what Isaiah is saying, but this requires deeper study.

I’ve already studied it and read the Bible. Jesus was never called those things and that’s okay. The translation is no good because the alternative is more problematic and suggests Isaiah issued a false prophecy in the name of the LORD. That’s a problem.

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

Let's look at what the NT says:

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, (ESV)

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)

Much of Jesus's ministry was counseling and guiding his followers. That the titles "Wonderful" and "Counselor" or "Wonderful Counselor" can be applied to him really goes without saying.

I don’t have any serious problems with “Wonderful Counselor” even though he wasn’t called that either. A counselor is more nuanced of a word than helper or teacher.

My main points of concern are with Jesus never being called the Everlasting Father or Mighty God.

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (ESV)

Why did you quote this? That doesn’t say Jesus is God. The definition of a name doesn’t define who the person is. Many people with names in the Bible who aren’t what their name means.

Check out what theophoric names in the Bible are.

* What does your version of the LXX give for Isa. 7:14?

It says that he needed to know either to prefer evil or choose good. All Bibles say something similar to this. It means Immanuel isn’t God. Our God is perfectly good and doesn’t need to develop a preference for good or evil.

Esias 7 (LXX)
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows either to prefer evil choose the good.

And, of course, we must add to that John 1:1-18; 8:24, 58; 18:5-6; 20:28; Acts 3:15; Rom 9:5; 10:9-13; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:15-17; and Heb 1:1-3, 10-12. Those are just some of the verses showing that Jesus is God.

Let’s see, these show Jesus isn’t God and it’s just the short list. Matt 1:1, Matthew 3:26,17, Matthew 9:4-8, Matthew 10:25, Mark 10:18, John 17:3, John 20:17, Acts 1:7, Acts 2:22,36, Acts 3:13, Acts 4:24-27, Acts 7:56, Acts 10:37,38, Acts17:24,25, Romans 1:4-7, Romans 1:22-24, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, … … …, Ephesians 4:3-6, 1 Tim 2:5, 1 Peter 1:2, Hebrews 1:1-10, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 7:9-10, Revelation 21:22, Revelation 22:8-13.

Too many to list.

We know that "Everlasting Father," or "Father of Eternity," has no bearing on the three persons of the Trinity and the first person being the Father. We also know that the Son is eternal, being truly God, and was the agent of creation. So, the only thing to understand is the use of "Father." Things to consider are the use of Father (in relation to God) in the OT and, in the NT, what it means to be a father.

In the OT, God was, in a general sense, the Father of all people as their Creator (Father of Eternity), and in particular, a Father to his chosen people. He cared for, guided, and protected the Israelites. That's what fathers do. It also has a reference to God being the redeemer and Saviour, which clearly has application to Jesus being the redeemer and Saviour. So, when we look at Jesus, there are numerous examples of his care and guidance of both the Jews and all people generally, and his followers specifically.

We should take into account that Jesus refused to be called father in any shape, form, or fashion. He isn’t anyone’s father in any sense of the word.

Matthew
9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (ESV)

We also need to take this into account:

Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Is Jesus the Father, the first person of the Trinity? Of course not. However, he cared for, guided, and protected his followers, revealed the indwelling Father, and is the Saviour. He did the things a father does and the things the Father does. And, importantly, he was the agent of creation, being in a true sense the "Father of Eternity."

See my point above. Jesus on earth said to call no one earth father contrary to what Isaiah 9:6 says in your preferred version.

Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
Heb 7:2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.
...
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
Heb 7:15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek,
Heb 7:16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
Heb 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” (ESV)

A king and a prince aren’t the same titles.

Luk 19:37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:

Luk 24:36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” (ESV)

Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (ESV)

Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (ESV)

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,

Yes I see the word peace there, but no “prince of peace” from your Isaiah 9:6.

There are numerous uses of peace related to Jesus throughout the NT. Clearly the title "Prince of Peace" can be applied to Jesus.

Is Jesus a prince or a king though?

Again, that is one English translation of many from one version of the LXX of many.

I can’t find any problems with Isaiah 9:6 from the LXX. Jesus was actually called a messenger.

Esias 9 (LXX)
6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

 

[Free]

I’ve already studied it and read the Bible. Jesus was never called those things and that’s okay. The translation is no good because the alternative is more problematic and suggests Isaiah issued a false prophecy in the name of the LORD. That’s a problem.


I don’t have any serious problems with “Wonderful Counselor” even though he wasn’t called that either. A counselor is more nuanced of a word than helper or teacher.

My main points of concern are with Jesus never being called the Everlasting Father or Mighty God.


Why did you quote this? That doesn’t say Jesus is God. The definition of a name doesn’t define who the person is. Many people with names in the Bible who aren’t what their name means.

Check out what theophoric names in the Bible are.

It says that he needed to know either to prefer evil or choose good. All Bibles say something similar to this. It means Immanuel isn’t God. Our God is perfectly good and doesn’t need to develop a preference for good or evil.

Esias 7 (LXX)
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows either to prefer evil choose the good.

Let’s see, these show Jesus isn’t God and it’s just the short list. Matt 1:1, Matthew 3:26,17, Matthew 9:4-8, Matthew 10:25, Mark 10:18, John 17:3, John 20:17, Acts 1:7, Acts 2:22,36, Acts 3:13, Acts 4:24-27, Acts 7:56, Acts 10:37,38, Acts17:24,25, Romans 1:4-7, Romans 1:22-24, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, … … …, Ephesians 4:3-6, 1 Tim 2:5, 1 Peter 1:2, Hebrews 1:1-10, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 7:9-10, Revelation 21:22, Revelation 22:8-13.

Too many to list.

We should take into account that Jesus refused to be called father in any shape, form, or fashion. He isn’t anyone’s father in any sense of the word.

Matthew
9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.


See my point above. Jesus on earth said to call no one earth father contrary to what Isaiah 9:6 says in your preferred version.


A king and a prince aren’t the same titles.

Yes I see the word peace there, but no “prince of peace” from your Isaiah 9:6.

Is Jesus a prince or a king though?

I can’t find any problems with Isaiah 9:6 from the LXX. Jesus was actually called a messenger.

Esias 9 (LXX)
6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Please be respectful and answer the questions.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

When somebody living under the Torah sinned they were responsible for what they had done, but if they repented they could be forgiven by a sacrifice that would bear their sin before God. The Torah explains this.

Yes this is right, but Jesus bore mankinds sins against Himself. They sinned against God on earth. This is why we ask the Lamb for forgiveness.

The Torah teaches individual responsibility and forgiveness through a substitute sacrifice that bears our sin.

The Torah teaches individual responsibility to confess and repent to be forgiven through God as a Lamb "Who opened not His mouth" in judgement against sinners.
The unrepentant will face Him in judgement later. The Son allowed Himself to be sinned against without judging them.

The verses in question are not saying there is no sacrifice that can bear our sin.

I never said that Rodger. You're not listening to what I'm saying. The Son of God bore sins for sure, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

Instead they are saying that we are individually responsible for our sins and need to seek forgiveness through God's provision of a substitute sacrifice that can bear our sin.

My friend, if Jesus came "in place of" anyone, He came in place of His Father not sinful mankind and this is why we confess and ask Him to forgive us,

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Very true. The Messiah and his followers both had similar authority and power. This power still exists today.

And very dissimiler, because you and I would retain that authority and power without each other, but not without Him. Understand?

It's certainly possible.

Then look at scripture way and see if it makes sense. God always sees His Son and those who follow His Son as Light coming into the world. Try Rev.19 that way.

bThanks for that commentary. It's refreshing to see someone make the connection between Jesus and his followers about what they have in common and not how they are so different.

Well, we have to understand how Jesus is not at all like us but is EXACTLY as His Father is, to know WHY He "shed His blood."

As we walk with our Lord we should be "coming from" Heaven.

Jesus said the word He spoke and therefore the word we speak will judge people in the last day. This means,

Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Jde1.14-15

Look at the example Jude uses in the previous verses which clarifies his meaning.
From Cain until Judes' day? Those people are all dead now, but the Lord came to them with the Prophets and the many who believed them throughout history.

To execute judgement on Judgement day.