Divinity of Jesus

You gave me a lot of answers.I didn't see you reply with infallible historical proof that your parents are really your parents.I saw no reply that you were equally as rigorous about exploring all possible methods of falsifying thier claims.Should I take it that you learned to trust them and its not worth debating?If so, there's also such a thing as gradually learning to trust God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In the Hebrew Scriptures you certainly have a covenant of God. You also have God promising to make a new covenant. So you can have the one God making an Old Covenant and a New Covenant - the same God.

The Lord Jesus was sacrificed not straight out of the womb with "virgin birth purity." That is a very shallow understanding of the New Testament.Christ lived a life of thirty three and one half years of a sinless testimony before He was sacrificed as the Lamb of God without blemish.It is more the life that He lived after being born that qualifies Him to be the spotless offering as the reality of the all the symbolic offerings of the Old Testament.It is not simply because He was born of a virgin with "virgin birth purity".Rather the book of Hebrews says that He learned obediance through the things which He suffered, and being perfected He became the author of eternal salvation to all those who believe.That is a paraphrase.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

IAJ, I don't have a lot of time for discussion today. But I will respond to this.The question is "From whose point of view was Jesus spotless?"Above all and primarily from the point of view of the One to Whom it matters the most - to God. In the eyes of the Father to whom we are accountable, before whom we all must stand, and with whom "judgement is according to truth".You very much want always to talk about the persecution of the Jews. It seems every subject you discuss eventually gravitates towards the millions of Jews who were persecuted and died. Now that is a powerful topic to discuss.Maybe you should open up a thread discussion dedicated to that one point since you like to return to it all the time.But for the purpose of the Divinity of Jesus it is important for me to point out that many people have been martyred for various reasons. Many times for noble reasons. Jews have been "sacrificed", Cambodians have been "sacrificed". Black Africans have been "sacrificed." American White boys on the fields of the Civil War were "sacrificed". Chinese, Japanese, Vietmese, Native Americans, French, Germans, British, Spanish, and many many other peoples could all say that from thier numbers thousands or millions were "sacrificed."I do not mean to trivialize the deaths of peoples in any war or persecution. You have a point about the Jews. Others could make the same point about another nation or ethnicity.There is only one sacrifice which was looked upon by God as sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind from the beginning of history until eternity. There is only one event of someone giving up themselves for the sake of others which has eternal consequences. That is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.He was the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. That is the sin of the whole world. One death which can atone for the sins of everyone in human history.We are talking about a death and resurrection which are altogether in another class. This class is occupied by ONE person and one person only - Jesus. The noble deaths of millions of people (Jews or otherwise) cannot replace the eternal redemption accomplishd by the death and resurrection of this man Jesus. No other sacrifice is acceptable to God for the propitiation of the sins of the world.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I dont't see anything in the Bible which I would discribe a "spasmodic fits of anger and rage" on the part of the God of the Bible.This is not to say that God does not get angry in the Bible. There is one notable place among many where God's mercy and longsuffering were His attitude but He was misrepresented as being angry by a spiritual leader, Moses.God did not allow Moses of all people to enter into the promised good land. Why? Because in one instance Moses misrepresented God by being extremely displeased with the Israelites when God was not. God says that Moses failed to sanctify Him before the people, misrepresented the divine attitude. And for that reason Moses was disciplined to not be allowed to enter into Canaan.Moses would be only allowed to go to the top of Mount Pisgah and see the good land. But even he, the leader, would not be allowed to enter. The study note in the Recovery Version says about the passage:To sanctify God is to make Him holy, i.e., separate from all the false gods; to fail to sanctify God is to make Him common. Inbeing angry with the people (v.10) and in wrongly striking the rock twice (v.11), Moses failed to sanctify God. In being angry when God was not angry, Moses did not represent God rightly in His holy nature, and in striking the rock twice, he did not keep God's word in His economy (see note 8(1), par. 2). Thus, Moses offended both God's holy nature and His divine economy. Because of this, even though he was intimate with God and may be considered a companion of God (Exo.33:11), Moses lost the right to enter the good land. As a leader of God's people Moses' attititude should have been in accordance with God's attitude. The angry actions of Moses were counted as rebellion by God because they represented to the people divine anger when God was not angry.But there is deeper significance to be found because the rock represents Christ. Christ was smitten by the judgment of God once for all people. After that He does not have to be slain again on any cross. We only need to speak to Him and divine life in the Holy Spirit (symbolized by the thirst quenching water from the rock) flows out of Him to refresh us and make us spiritually alive.God had told Moses to smite the rock once before to represent the one time death of Christ. Water flowed out of the smitten rock. The next instance in which Moses failed to sanctify God, God had told him only to speak to the rock. Compare Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:8."The rock in this chapter typifies the crucified and resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 10:4b), and the water that flowed from the rock typifies the Spirit (1 Cor.10:4a) as the living water that flowed out of the crucified Christ (John 19:34 ...). In Exodus 17 Moses struck the rock with his rod, and water flowed out for the people to drink.

​

According to Paul's word in 1 Cor. 10:4 ..., this rock was a spiritual rock that followed God's people in their journey through the wilderness. This signifies that Christ has been crucified to become a rock that follows His people. This following rock is the resurrected Christ as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 14:45), who is always with the church to supply His believers with the water of life.

​

Since Christ has been crucified and the Spirit has been given, there is no need for Christ to be crucified again, i.e., no need to strike the rock again, that the living water may flow. In God's economy Christ should be crucified only once (Heb. 7:27;9:26-28). To receive the living water from the crucified Christ, we need only to "take the rod" and "speak to the rock." To take the rod is to identify with Christ in His death and apply the death of Christ to ourselves and our situatation. To speak to the rock is to speak a direct word to Christ as the smitten rock, asking Him to give us the Spirit of life (compare JOhn 4:10) based on the fact tht the SPirit has already been given. If we apply the death of Christ to ourselves and ask Christ in faith to give us the Spirit, we will receive the living Spirit as the bountiful supply of life (Phil.1:19)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You noticed the flood. Did you notice the rainbow of mercy and the covenant given by God after the flood? Did you notice the rainbow in the book of Revelation around the throne of God in chapter 4?In the midst of the book of Revelation did you notice the rainbow of mercy around the head of the One Who treads the land and sea in judgement in chapter 10?I think the phrase "prone to fits of anger and rage" convey to me some kind of preferance to childish temper tandrums. This would be a caricature of the righteous judgment of God.I would not suggest that the punishment handed down by a civil judge in reaction to a prosecuted crime was due to that judge's inclination to "fits of anger" Considering the full scope of what I see in the Bible, I can't see the imputation of righteous judgment of God as His being prone to fits of anger.This would be more typical of the view of the criminal who is being punished. He might be there sitting in jail complaining that the court simply had a childish fit of anger to place him under a jail sentence.With worldly people it may be so. It seems very much not the case to me with the Bible's God.I might prefer that the ultimate Governor of the univese should simply be an all-incompasing permissivist who allows any moral behavior to go on unchecked? But that is not the case. And when justice is imputed I don't see this as self indulgence on God's part because He likes to have temper fits.Did you notice this passage in which Christ's disciples wanted God to call fire down to burn up a town that rejected the gospel: We don't see God prone to a temper fit in this instance.And though I would not argue that God showed anger in judgment I don't see Him prefering to or being prone to. Rather He states that it is strange for Him to have to judge sinful men in the first place:"For Jehovah will rise as on Mount Perazim, He will be agitated as in the valley of Gibeon, to do His deed, His strange deed, and to do His work, His most different work." (Isa. 28:21)In other words, God deems it strange that He should have to carry out this kind of judgment on man at all.Then again we have an entire Old Testament book of Jonah dedicated to the revelation of God's reluctance to judge a nation rather than His eagerness to do so.In the case of Sodom, the judgement is preceeded with God's prophet grilling Him concerning whether any righteous in the city would be wrongly lumped in with the unrighteous when God judges.I think it is significant that in this instance the Bible records how Abraham converses with "the Judge of all the earth" to assure himself and us the readers, that God's judgment, though severe, was nonetheless measured and precise.How do I know that your charging the Bible's God with "fits of anger and rage" are not just an expression our human proneness to want to be left alone by God to do whatever we please?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

pelican, I would like to take this at face value. You looked "closely" at the life of Jesus as told in the Bible. But I wonder how "closely" did you really look?Perhaps some of my comments would suggest to look a little closer. Part of the problem skeptics have is that when we say that Jesus is the Son of God or that He is God incarnate they think we mean that Jesus was not also an ordinary human being. Particularly the Gospel of Luke emphasizes that this Savior of man and Son of God was an ordinary human being.He is God and man mingled together. In Him we believers in Christ see human being 100%. And in Him we Christians also see God 100%. We see the union of an ordinary human man with the extraordinary eternal God.I guess you didn't see or were not impressed that Jesus presents Himself as God/Man. And as such He teaches and displays what the meaning of life is - that God and man would be united together in an "organic" unity - a mingling of divinity with humanity. It is hard to imagine how Jesus the baby could orchestrate His birth to fulfill a prophecy of Micah given five centries before that out of Bethlehem would come such a Messiah. At least you would have to admit that Jesus was persuaded that He was that Bethlehem Savior and should act and speak like it.Before we get to His teaching we have to realize that He was expected and anticipated to come on the scene. Especially this is brought out in Luke's gospel which emphasizes His typocal normal human manhood. In the first four chapters we see so many people anticipating the arrival of Someone like Jesus.So even as a baby He already has followers. This is amazing. Now we come to His attitude about His "own beliefs" as you say, as an adult:"Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone resilves to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from Himself seeks His own glory; but He who seeks the glory of HIm who sent Him, this One is true, and unrighteousness is not in Him" (John 7:16-18)Clearly, His own belief was according to the authority of the one who sent Him. He says that the teaching is not His but the teaching of the one who sent Him.Again He says He can do nothing on His own:"Jesus therefore said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am, and that I do nothing from Myself, but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things.

​

And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him." (John 8:28,29)The Father teaches Him what to say. He speaks for the Father's glory and with the Father's teaching. He says He has no teaching of His own apart from His Father. What He does is always pleasing to the Father. The Father continuouosly testifies His pleasure at the Son's obedience by being with Him."For I have not spoken from Myself; but the Father who sent Me, He Himself has given Me commandment, what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49)"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 from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works.

​

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves." (John 14:10,11)When you speak of "his own beliefs" this is it. He prefers that we believe in Him that He is one with the Father and the Father is one with Him. But if we cannot grasp such an divine / human mingling and union He desires that we believe in Him because of the works themselves He does. That is works that are only possible by God to do.Actually, He says that as He speaks the Father is working - " ... I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works." He said we would know the disciples by their fruits. So there must be division so that we can see who are the true fruit bearing disciples of Christ and who are not.I don't know about you. But I asked God to let me be with those who encourage my faith through genuine Christian fruit. I am looking for those who manifest genuine following of Jesus. I am not looking for those who will give me reasons to doubt but reasons to believe. This is some kind of "blame everything on Jesus" philosophy which I think is not realistic.I am rather convinced that if there is anything keeping this world from completely degrading into chaos it is the presence of genuine fruit bearing and praying disciples of Jesus. He taught that the His genuine followers under the kingdom living would be the salt of the earth. Salt prevents food from rotting. It preserves.I think the human society has the salt of the followers of Jesus keeping society from completely rotting. They may not be able to fix the world for you. But they do prevent the whole thing from total moral rot.But we could argue this all day. It is the final judgment conducted by God which will reveal whose to blame and whose to thank for the preservation of the human society.I did notice that God starts with those who are suppose to know better. Judgement begins with the house of God, it says. So you would advise your children that it is not good to forgive?
Do you then advize them to keep a grudge against an offense as long as possible?Do you teach your children that they should not love God or love one another? Since that is that is a teaching of Jesus do you steer them clear of those concepts?Your children are going to undergo pains of which you will be totally oblivious to. You will be ignorant of their sufferings. And you will not be there to help. In my case I thought it was good to let them know that God is ALWAYS there to know everything. And that they could talk to Him about any problem. They could open their hearts to the Savior Jesus and have many deep fears and anxieties calmed by His presence and His peace.It is sad to me that you make and effort to steer your children away from such a Friend as Jesus. No one can get on the inside of the troubled heart like Jesus.You would be depriving them of the greatest Friend and Savior Who looks beyond their faults and truly sees their needs. There is no Friend like Jesus. In the shadows of trial you can always find Jesus.
YOu cannot pass through any temptation or trial that He does not thoroughly know and can support you in that you can overcome.What a terrible folly that you would not even read to your children the words of Jesus. If I were an agnostic or an athiest, I would hope that I had at LEAST the decency to read aloud to my children the words of Jesus.I am curious. Whose moral example do you find superior to that of Jesus Christ that you would prefer your children would look to him or her? Pitiful and sick. Sorry to say this.May the heavenly Father have mercy on your children.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Within myself I really don't think I can muster up any more faith than the next guy.I do know where to go to have some faith produced in me, that is to the word of God when I come with a willingness to be changed. Aside from that I assure you I really am just an average person with no more faith than you.I never intended to walk with Christ to the degree that I do, which isn't enough. Somehow when His Spirit entered into my heart the love for Him grew. He is declaring that He is a man under authority. He has none in Himself. His teaching, so to speak, is sourced in the Father Who sent Him.He wants nothing for Himself as a man. He wants everything for the Father. The cross is the evidence of His absoluteness for the will of His Father.How would it be received today? Human nature has not changed and tje relationship of Jesus the Son to the Father has not changed. I would say that people are still dealing with Christ the same way they dealt with Him 2000 some years ago. Do you mean that when you look back on your life with your children you have absolutely nothing for which you might thank God for?Was there absolutely NO happeness in your lives? In spite of some troubles and difficulties was there nothing at all for which you could sauy "I thank you God that in this thing you showed mercy?"I was born with a partially blind eye. Did your children have soundness of sight? If so that is one thing you could say that God mercifully spared your kids from whereas He allowed me to have this difficulty.Could it not have been much worse with you and your family?So you have no thanks whatsover towards God? You have no sense that you were more fortunate in this or that think then some other people?No thanks for soundness of bones, soundness of mental abilities, sight, intelligence. Could they not have been born much greater difficulties which other children experience?Maybe you should give some equal time to enumerate the blessings which caused some happiness in your lives rather than only murmer. I, of course, do not know the details of your life with your family. I do know that most everyone, if they stop and think about it, can find many things for which God could be thanked ungrudgingly. Oh they'll do that without you putting forth much effort. I have a 25 year old and a 28 year old. Believe me, they will learn from your mistakes. Not too much wisdom or effort needs to be exerted there.Of course how each of us raises our kids is personal. Mine are now adults and are not exact copies of me.But I will never regret reading to them the Bible. And letting them learn how to pray effectively. I taught them how to confess and deal with their conscience before God. I taught them the power of the blood of Jesus to cleanse the conscience and obliterate condemnation.I taught them how to come to the Bible to feed their hungryu spirit. And most of all I tauht them that they are not in the universe by accident. Life has a meaning and that they are eternally loved by God. I taught them that man is important to God so that God became a man.I taught them that nothing can serperate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. And I taught them that God is near, present, and can be tastedm, experienced in any kond of hardship.I taught them the value of time. That is that they need time to be transformed by the Holy Spirit into the image of Christ. That is because in the age to come the only thing that will survive and live forever is that which is transformed and conformed into the image of Jesus.I taught them that life without Christ and God is empty and vain and a Godless life can never be a satisfying one because we were made for God.Now what they do with this teaching is their responsibility. But I considered even before they were born that they were not really MY children. They were God's children from the start. So I hold God responsible to take care of them in every way. I do my part of course.But in the end I gave both of my children to God for His eternal purpose even before they were born. I don't regret that.As for "been there done that" Christian experience which you hold out to me, I was not always faithful. But God has always been faithful in spite of this. There is nothing in which I said which would suggest that all humans are not equal before God.He "loved the world". Perhaps you are refering to some kind of Universalist belief that there is no division between those who are saved and those who are not. But I think that that reflects the power of the decision of our will.In our Lord's Table meeting we have wonderful oneness and unity. We have Spanish speaking, Chinese speaking, Korean speaking, and English speaking praises ascend up to the Father.Aside from this we have a couple from Iran and a couple from Ghana. In our larger gatherings there is such a display of oneness among human beings as to cause me to want to weep.The oneoness of the Triune God - the oneness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is infused into His people to cause them to be one.We taste the oneness that the world is longing for but is only possible in Christ. 1.) Jesus taught us to judge others.Don't you think this requires context? I can think of passages in which He says judge not unless we ourselves want to be judged. He says that with the judgement that we the disciples judge we also shall be judged.Other passages on judgment in the New Testament are really a matter of Christ within us giving us the discernment to discriminate.I really don't think there is enough here in this complaint to really discuss. Some examples would have to be presented by you for me to see context and exactly what you are refering to.2.) Jesus condemned others.This too is so brief that it is hard to discuss. However we do have Jesus saying:"God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:17)On His cross He received the condemnation due to all the world for the sins of the world. Justice was imputed upon Himself on behalf of the sinners of the world.Yes there are two sides to many matters in the Bible. One side is that Christ received condemnation on our behalf. On this bases we who receive this salvation are justified. It is not as though God has overlooked our sins in a sloppy permisivist way. He has judged them on the cross of Jesus. Justice on our behalf caused the sinless and innocent Savior ro be condemned in substitution for us.Yes it is true that those who reject the Son of God will be condemned. So there are two places where we can be condemned. We can be condemned on Calvary on the cross of Jesus. Or we can be condemned at the final judgment before God.Any idea from you of condemnation without remedy, without possibility of justification or redemption is at best a very warped view of the Scripture. You apparently missed the focal point of the New Testament if all you come away with is "Jesus condemned people."3.) Jesus taught us not to save ourselves. Not good.If you don't have anything else it is not good.If I have in one pocket 10 dollars then I better save it. However, if in the other pocket I have a check for 100 trillion dollars then I have a tremendous amount "left over" after I spend the 10 dollars.We who receive Jesus can afford to not save our soul life because we have within us the indistructible divine and resurrected life of Christ as our "left overs".The self that Jesus tells us we should not save is the polluted and sin filled fallen and rebellious Adamic nature. It clings to us like a parasite.For Jesus to say not to save yourself is like saying not to allow a leech to cling to you sucking your blood out. The fallen self life must go to the cross in self denial. But that is not all that the believer in Jesus has. He has Christ the eternal Son of God living within him or her. "It is not longer I that live but Christ that lives within me."To be born of God, born again, is to receive another life mingled into your life. The believer has entered into an "organic" union with Christ. The old nature of the fallen Adam is parasitic and should not be saved.If we lose our old man that is being corrupted, we will find our newness in Christ. It is a paradox that you are not doing justice to at all. Jesus said if we wish to find our soul we should lose it.Do you want to keep your soul and lose it in the end? Or would you rather lose your soul in this life and find it in the eternal age? I would rather lose now and find in the end. I would not like to keep now only to lose in the end.You focus on losing but you do not focus on Christ as our resurrection. That is one reason He died and rose. That is to show that death cannot overcome the divine life of God. He is indistructible. And once He enters into man He is the inward indistructible life which can pass through any hardship and death.Losing of the soul life is not losing the facilities of the soul the mind, emotion, and will. Losing the soul life is not losing the falculties of the created man. God does not want you to throw away or lose your mind, your emotion, or your will.God want to sift out of your being the Satanic corrupting parasitic element which has attached itself to you and ruins you. He knows that self denial will stop that evil element from passing through. But your being joined to Christ will pass through and survive. You will come out in resurrection because the resurrected one is within you if you have truly been born of God.So losing yourself is finding your true self.It is the rebellious fallen nature of Adam which has been polluted which we must deny for the sake of the Christ who comes to enter into our beings. Adam goes down and Christ rises in resurrection within us.We cannot be cured. We can only be brought into a death and brought out in resurrection. Self improvement will not work. The cross on the fallen self works to the Christian. There is no life without death.Death is the threshold of resurrection. Self denial is the threshold of transformation and even deification by the divine nature.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

God's intention is to be subjectively imparted to man as His divine. He desires to dispense Himself as eternal life into man. What is more subjective to a person that his life?Hardly anything can be more subjective to a person than life. And from the beginning God has conveyed Himself to man not only as His outward Creator but in His plan to be divine life to man.This fact is conveyed firstly in having the created man placed before the tree of life in Genesis 2.Here the apostles of speak of the objective truth about God in terms also of subjective divine life that they personally have seen, heard, touched, handled with thier hands, and ultimately are in subjective fellowship with: The conveying of universal truth here related to the Father and the Son is neverthess spoken of in quite subjective terms also. The million Jews were sinners. They may have died. But none of them could be a ransom to God for even their own sins. It is the Old Testament that teaches that: [qs]"None can by any means redeem [his] brother or give to God a ransom (or expiation) for him. (For the redemption of their soul is costly and must be given up forever), that he would yet live always [and] not see corruption. (Psalm 49:7-9) [/b][/qs]So no man can by his wealth of riches or his death ransom his own soul before God. The 1.1 million Jews that died needed, with every other sinner born from Adam, someone to expiate for them to redeem them from their sins.In the same Psalm 49 the psalmists writes: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me." (vs. 15)So we have to view God's procedure as to how God will redeem every man through a Redeemer, the Christ and Messiah of Whom it is written: So you see, in spite of the fact that millions of Jews died, none of them was able to make expiation for their own soul. Only the Righteous One, the Suffering Servant promised in Isaiah 53 is able to bear the iniquities and make His own soul a sin offering to God for all other people.The death of 1.1 million Jews is aifnificant, But it is comparable to the death of Christ as "the Lamb of God who take away the sin of the world." You have said this before. And my reply to you should not be taken as lessening the tragic significance of so many people dying. However, their deaths cannot compare to the death and resurrection of the promised Suffering Servant, the Messiah. Jesus spoke of the deaths of people. But He said that they were sinners and that unless his audience repent we are all in danger of dying a miserable death. Here Jesus acknolwedges tragic deaths, both from persecution and from causes outside of man's doing. In both cases those who died were not worse sinners than others nor sinless as He was. Their deaths do not make it uneccessary that the rest of us repent to God.The death of 1.1 million Jews does not redeem you from your sins. But the death of Christ, if accepted by you as being on your behalf, will expiate for your sins.At the last judgment, the death of 1.1 million Jews will mean nothing in terms of you being redeemed from your sins. But trusting in the death of one Man, Jesus Christ for you, will. It is significant and a tragedy. But the blood of Christ was the blood of one SINLESS before God. And He is the propitiation for the sins of the world.The cattle offered up by the Levitical priests had to be without blemish. It was examined for defects. And only if found perfect was it offered as an offering to Jehovah. This is a type of Christ who was sinless before His Father. And He also was exmined for four days by His enemies in Jerusalem before His ordeal of death on Calvary. No sin was found in Him. And no guile was found in His mouth. He was spotless and perfect as the Lamb of God.Peter tells the believers: There is no salvation in the 1.1 million Jews who died. There is salvation in the One with a sinless life. And in His shed blood is the new covenant promised by God, that among other things, He would no longer remember our sins any more.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was on a scale of significance equal and even surpassing that of what occured at Mt. Sinai.God Himself promised a new covenant not like the covenant He made at Sinai. So it is the Old Testament God Himself Who testifies that the new covenant is as or more significant than the covenant at Mt. Sinai. See Jeremiah 31:31-34.It is therefore the same covenanting God Who established the first covenant Who Himself points to the significance of a "new covenant"Here is where Jesus confirms the new covenant in Himself: His death and resurection: Matthew 26:26-30 and Luke 22:14-20 Christ was the cornerstone of the building rejected by the builders. And there is salvation in no other name but His, as the Apostle Peter declared in his message to the people of Jerusalem. You are still rejecting the stone which has been established by God as the head of the corner.In the building of God's house of salvation, Jesus Christ is the Head and the cornerstone. Those who were of the Jews considered to be the builders of that house rejected the very cornerstone.Your reasonings are only a continuation of their rejection. The paying of which you refer to is not expiation. Concerning the 1.1 million slain Jews, this passage would only teach that each one died for his or her own sins. That is the only possible way you could apply the passage about the child not dying for the parent. The first Christian disciples were Jews. The book of Matthew and the book of Hebrews srongly target the Hebrew audience yet are also universally applicable to all nations too.The gospel of Christ was to the Jew first and also to the Greeks. Paul said he was a debtor both to Greeks and Barbarians. Yet he was specially chosen by God because of his strong backround in the Jews religion.You would have been no match for Saul of Tarsus, a star student of Gameliel. He took the initiative to persecute the Christian church. But for our sakes he obtianed mercy, was converted, and Christ was manigested within him. Paul's revelation was not sourced in man but came from God. And he lived it as well as taught it. God revealed that the resurrected and living Jesus was still present living in Paul - "to reveal His Son in me." You say the Christian gospel is of man's doing. This top scholar of Judiasm who sought to ravage to the death the new "sect" declared that he received a revelation of Jesus Christ.I beleive the New Testament over you in this matter. I think all who believe in the gospel of Christ have first or all been shown mercy by God.Without the mercy of God I don't think anyone can believe. I never met Mohammed. Jesus I have met. The New Testament is very complete and says just about everything we need to trust in Christ for both eternal and daily, moment by moment salvation. Like you, Paul also once fought against the new covenant gospel of Christ. He writes that because God showed mercy upon him to become a disciple and announcer of the Gospel, God showed His longsuffering towards the ignorant. He established Paul as a model and a pattern of a former opposer who turned and became a faithful servant of Christ. I am certain that Paul's arguments against Christ and His gospel exceeded yours in toughness many times over. But he received mercy and God revealed Christ living in him also. He is an encouragement to us when we see the stiff necked still seeking to oppose the Gospel of Jesus.Like Paul, you too are kicking against the pricks. I pray that God will also show mercy to you and heal your blindness, open your spiritual eyes, and realize that Jesus is the risen Lord indeed.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not quite sure what you mean here. However God spoke at Mt. Sinai in the Old Testament, to the prophet Moses. Moses went up alone into the mountain. Though seventy elders accompanied him part way, he went alone to the summit and received the law.Moses came down alone with the tablets of the law. By faith the Jews believe that what he came down with in his hands was written by the finger of God. Compare this with God speaking again in the Old Testament the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34.I am not trying to argue which speaking was NOT great. By faith I believe both were the speaking of God. You have to admit that the essential law written on the tablets was an act if witnessed was witnessed by Moses alone. He comes down from the mountian of Sinai, and you either believe him that he has God's law or you do not.You also either believe that the same God spoke in Jeremiah of His intention to establish a new covenant or you do not.Now if you believe that God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah as He also spoke through the prophet Moses then you should consider who most qualifies to be suspected as the central figure in this [b]"new covenant" promised by God.I entreat you that Jesus of Nazareth overwhelmingly qualifies to be the cornerstone of the new covenant of Jeremiah's promise. As even some of the believing Jews said: The Pharisees who overheard this comment then sent their deputies to arrest Jesus. Then we see what they in turn replied: Considering all that He says and all that He did, Jesus qualifies to be the central figure and executor of the new covenant promised by God through Jeremiah. No man ever spoke as this man. And it is hard to imagine another coming whose testimony is more compelling than that of Jesus Christ. I am not completely sure what you mean. However I pointed out to you that the actual handing of the tablets with the law of God to Moses is something you must believe Moses about.I do not like to use your phrases "opened" or closed. God spoke in the Bible in many portions and in many ways.Elijah the prophet was disappointed when God did not crack open the heavens and rescue him from Jezebel. God had to specifically teach ELijah that it was not only in mighty earthquake, earth shattering windstorm, or devouring fire that God could speak. God could also speak in the still small voice (or gentle quiet voice) within man's created conscience. Please read about God's lesson to Elijah in First Kings 19:9-13.Gentleness is not to be dispised in God's speaking for strongness and thunder. One of the prophecies concerning the Messiah was that He would not even quench a smoking flax or bruise a broken reed, because of His gentleness and fineness: This prophecy not only emphasizes that the Gentiles will trust in God's Messiah. It also shows a side to Him which is gentle. His speaking is powerful in that the gentleness of His words cut will lay heavy on thier conscience convicting them to turn to God in their hearts.There is the quiet and gentle yet tremendously strong power of His convicting of the conscience of the sinner unto repentence.God confirmed His Son in many ways, strong and gentle. When the Spirit came down upon Him to equipe Him for ministry a voice out of heaven spoke as also at Mt. Sinai - "This is My beloved Son in Whom I have found My delight"And Paul writes in FIrst Corinthians that there were still 500 Christian brothers who witnessed the resurrected Christ. And most of them were still alive for the Corinthians to verify or not whether Paul's message of a risen Christ was the genuine Gospel: When Paul wrote this the recipients of his letter could still check his words with the majority of over 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.The testimony of God's Son is compelling like the testimony of God speaking from Mount Sinai. Mohammed did not claim to be what Jesus claimed He was.You are not comparing equal matters. One taught that He was God become a man. The other only said he was the last prophet. And this supposed "last prophet" delivers a twisted version of the old testament history and adds many fabrications to the New Testament.Mohammed is only one of many false prophets which Christ prophesied would come to distract people from the Son of God.And of course the idea of God having a Son is repugnant to Islam. Yet it is predicted by the Hebrew Bible, among other places, Psalm Number Two: So before we get to the New Testament your Hebrew Bible pre-warns the kings and the nations to kiss the Son of God. For it is the Son of God as God's installed King on Zion who will inherit the limits of the earth and possess the nations.Your reasonings will be laughed at by God according to the Psalm. For you are also vainly seeking to cast His ropes of love from you. But He is the Anointed, the King, the One to inherit the limits of the planet, and the Son of God. I would love to re-read Jeremiah and Isaiah as I have with the entire Bible many times over the last 38 years. I was about 24 when I first read through the Bible. I am now 58 and never grow tired of exploring its pages.So I thank you for your invitation to read again Isaiah and Jeremiah. However, I stand by what I have written. The promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations was given by God before both covenants were enacted by God.I am not sure what your line of argument here is concerning Abraham.I do know one important thing. Abraham was justified before God by his faith and not by his keeping of the law of Moses. All that he did was an expression of the justifying faith in his heart which God accounted to him for righteousness.And he [Abraham] believed Jehovah, and He [Jehovah] accounted it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:6) So faith in Christ unto justification, though a new covenant, is actually according to the original pattern of justification before God, given prior to the law of Moses. When we speak about WHO raised Jesus from the dead, it is a mystery among other mysteries of the Bible. On one hand it says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. On the other hand the New Testament depicts Jesus as havingt the authority to be raised from the dead Himself. So this fact of who raised Jesus is tied in with the Triune God - that Christ is both God and man, both the child born who is Mighty God, and the Son given who is eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6).At any rate we are commanded to believe. Though we may not be able to fully explain the resurrection, we are commanded to believe in the resurrection of Christ.This Christ of God is also prophesied to be "the Desire of all the nations" (Hag. 2:7). So He is the one desired by the nations to establish peace and justice in the earth. This is a fact though they may not know it. The fulfillment of all their yearnings is Jesus Christ the desire of the nations. Outwardly, look to Israel for the building again of the temple, For all prophecy of Christ's second coming indicate that that temple must be erected.That is an outward sign. But inwardly, I suggest that you listen to the voice of Christ in your conscience that He in His death and resurretion alone can save you from your sins.Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It was very late last night (around 1:30 am here), and I may have erred in some detail.As you request, before I continue, I will re-read Exodus on this point.Thanks

Yes. I stand corrected on this point."And Jehovah said to Moses, I am coming down to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe you forever." (Exo: 19:9)In Exodus 20 appears to me that God publically spoke the ten commandments (verses 1 -17) before the people asked Moses that he would be the mediating speaker in verse 19:"And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak with us, so we do not die" (Exo 20:19)Then Moses drew near to the deep darkness where God was in verse 21. I assume that you mean a very PUBLIC revelation witnessed by a large multitude of people.Well, firstly, I did not say that the Jews were "wrong/bad" for asking for the same manner of revelation. Certainly the Jews can ask of God whatever they wish.My second response is where would you point to as the instance in which they asked for a revelation in this same manner? Or is this a personal aspiration with you and some Jews that you know?Thirdly, in the New Testament there is much PUBLIC confirmation of His ministry. Some of His acts were just as much public as Exodus 20:1-17.Fourthly, I would remind you that even though the Jew had this mighty PUBLIC manifestation of God's words and power, it did not stop at least a largeg number of them to rebel anyway.When Moses was absent from the camp too long they forgot the PUBLIC manifestation soon enough and made for themselves an idol of a golden calf to replace Jehovah.The mighty PUBLIC manifestation of God's speaking is not always a sure garuantee that the unbelief in man will not sway him to rebel against divine revelation. This is not only true in the old covenant but in the new covenant as well.If the public manifestation of God on MT. Sinai was to overwhelmingly more valid than why the golden calf, the rebellion of Korah, the rebellion to refuse to enter into Canaan at the report of the spies?The public manifestation was indeed great. But there still is an unbelieving element in man which can tempt him to disbelieve anyway. I understand your point. But I think the first "variance" that God points out is that the Jews were not able to keep His covenant. Look again at what Jeremiah wrote:"Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them our from the land of Egypt,
MY COVENANT WHICH THEY BROKE, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah." (Jer. 31:31-33 my emphasis) God's reason for changing the covenant is not simply because He wishes to do so willy nilly. The first covenant is that which they recipients failed to keep - "MY COVENANT WHICH THEY BROKE"Joshua, Judges, First and Second Kings, and other books reveal the repeated failure of the nation to keep the covenant. The law was given to expose the weakness of man (the Jews in particular) to keep the commandments of God.So God the commandment giver will Himself become the commandment keeper in the form of a God-Man, His Son. And He will impart the Son into the hearts as a living Spirit. This is the writing of the law in thier hearts. He will impart into the believers in the life, death, and resurrection of the Son, the divine nature of God that they may learn to walk by this divine nature:" ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)And the preparation of this Savior was accompanied with much piblic manifestation of His Deity, authority, wisdom, power, and great love.
These manifestations of God in Christ are written in the New Testament. And many of them were in fulfillment to prophecy.And there are further manifestations of Him reserved for a future time at His second coming. According to Moses, you know there was to be another Prophet like Moses. And the Jews were to listen to Him. Aside from being the Son of God, He also speaks for God the Father and is that prophet that the people were to listen to. The Jews themselves asked for a mediator in this great public manifestation. God promises them a Prophet like Moses who will speak the words of God to them.How do you know that Jesus is not that Prophet speaking? Here Jesus says that He speaks the words of the Father within Him: So we Christians have believed in the manifestation of a Man totally subjected to God in Christ the Son. He is that Prophet speaking the words of God. And He is that manifestation of God in a man so that God and man are one.You must be careful what you ask God for. You might get it. They asked for a mediator to spare them the direct manifestation of God in His glory. That God came concealed in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth.Are you going to hear now the words of this Prophet? Are you going to hear what this promised Prophet says about Himself and His Father? I want to hear Him.I think that you are coming out with excuse after excuse why not to listen to this One. All this about the manner of open revelation amounts to just another excuse not to here the words of God through His Son Who is that promised Prophet also. The "keys" are plural. It is not one key. It is plural "keys".I believe that Christ meant a key for the Jews and a key for the Gentiles. Peter opened the door of the church to the Jews first at Pentacost and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius.God is definite, but He is not narrow as you charge. In Exodus He commanded Moses to erect a tabernacle. In the tabernacle would dwell God. In all the earth, over the entire surface of the planet there was one tabernacle erected in the wilderness where man could say "God is in there".Was this elitist or narrow? This was God being DEFINITE. And this is the Old Testament.I don't think you have a case. Besides we are told that the saved are from every tongue and people and tribe and nation. And we are told that they come into the kingdom of God from the north, south, east, and west. The gates of the New Jerusalem are opened to the four directions of the world.Whosover believes is very broad. And when skeptics try to replace the gospel with their human ideas they usually end up with a plan to know truth which is MORE restrictive than that Gospel and not LESS restrictive. Every soul has sined. So the whole world is in need of the Savior.And He is a living Person and not a religion. He said "No one comes to the Father except through Me."He did not say that no one comes to the Father except through Christianity as a religion. The "Me" there is a living Person.If anyone comes to the Father in any culture or being born into any religious backround, it will be because of this "Me" of the living Person of the Son of God.This is not "no one comes to the Father except through Western Civilization". It is that the Son of God as a living Person is the only way anyone can come unto the Father. That is right. And that Person is God in Christ. He had lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18. He also wrestled with Jacob. He appeared to Isaiah and to Ezekiel and to Daniel.Finally God became a man. He did so to join not just one man to God but to join man to God in His salvation. That is those who through Him become sons of God.Now in the New Testament He is born into the womb of a virgin as prophesied and is incarnated - the Word became flesh. He was the first covenant giver and He is now incarnated in a man as the second covenant establisher.But you don't believe that God was incarnate. I know that you should reconsider the incarnation.That is all I have time to discuss this morning.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If God is a reality He is the God of reality and not the God of religion.I think you are confusing ethnic cultures with universal reality.
If there is a God that God is not the God of a national religion but the God of reality.I mean, sure the nations are separated. But Adam was placed before the tree of life. So God intended that He would have imparted His divine life to the forefather of all peoples on the earth.And His reason for blessing Abraham had not Israel as its limited intention but that through Israel He might reach the whole of mankind with His blessing.And if ever there was a disconnect between and ethnic culture and their national deity, the Jews would be the most striking example. No nation would write book like the Bible about their nation and their national deity.The Bible is far too candid, frank, and exposing too be dismissed as propoganda for the national deity of a certain ethnic group.Anyway, it is a curious opinion to me. For on one hand you seem to argue for the Hebrew Bible. But on the other hand your underlying philosophy as stated above seems so contrary to it. What you say contradicts the Old Testament."Turn to Me and be saved, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, For I am God and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:22 my emphasis) So we leave it here for now, I guess - that is that Yahweh is just one of many not too real national deities of a nation which is meant to be seperated from others.One nation's God has nothing to do with another nation's God. And they are all meant to be separated and the more walls the better.I will watch to see how long you will commit to this belief before you go back to some sense of universality of one God for all mankind. This sounds to me like an unbeliever's wishful thinking.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yes, God did select the descendents of Abraham for a particular function. And yes, it was not at all easy to be God's "chosen people". IamJoseph,You have some interesting statements. And I might at sometime be willing to discuss them perhaps in a thread dedicated to, say, Yahweh's relationship with other nations.But I think I will try to get back to the subject of the Divinity of Jesus.