To Planten or any other Muslim

  • Thread starter Thread starter inJESUS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inJESUS said:
going back to our topic since the divinity of Jesus deserves another thread.

Joseph , the husband of Mary, was a son of David:

Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.

David is not the direct biological father of Joseph, but Joseph is an offspring of David.Jesus could have been the son of Joseph, son of David, if Mary and Joseph had sexual union, and He would be legally called “from the seed of David” or “offspring of David” and the promise will be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
Joseph carried the curse of Jechonias and therefore no royalty could exist in Joseph’s line.
 
inJESUS said:
because he misundrstood what Jesus was saying and Jesus corrected this wrong interpretation :

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

“Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

the passage has to do with spiritual rebirth on earth, not physical.
Click to expand...
I reject the “born again” business evangelicals preach, like it’s one big event in your life and you are a brand new person foevermore. But that’s not reality. Every day, hour, minute, you can be “born again” when you repent of sin. But that’s not what this is about.

He was talking about physical birth and then after you die, the rebirth in resurrection.

But in his case, he really was born of a womb twice. So this entire discussion is here for a reason.
 
In other words, couldn’t Jesus have fulfilled the promise by being born to the apporopriate parents, whoever they should be from the seed of David?
 
inJESUS said:
what about a man descended from Solomon? would there still be a need of virgin birth?
Click to expand...
Yes, Solomon no longer had the promise of a Messiah, only David did.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

1 Kings 9:6 But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them:

1 Kings 9:7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:

And that’s what happened:

1 Kings 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

Judah and Israel split, God let it go on a while, then finally smashed them both and they’ve been gone ever since.

Only David has a valid promise for Messiah, and it went to Jesus so David would never fail to have his son on the throne. That’s why a virgin birth was needed, so God could keep His promise.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
When every Biblical reference to son of God and children of God refers to special believers of God, even right there in Luke for Adam as a man created directly by God, and in Romans for all men led by the Holy Spirit, there’s not a real way to justify turning only one of them into a demigod just to satisfy a doctrine. In this case the demigod usage is the selective usage.
Click to expand...
First of all, I did not say anything about “demigod”. We are discussing the unique sense in which He is said in the scriptures to be the “Son of God”. Secondly, yes, the Bible in various places does say that all mankind, and certainly the righteous, are the children of God. But it uses the expression “Son of God” in relation to Jesus in a unique sense that cannot be applicable to any other person. For example, it describes Him as the “Only Begotten Son” of God (John 1:14, 18; John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). “Only Begotten” means one of a kind. It means that He is the Son of God in a unique sense that nobody else can be. It means that if He is the “Only Begotten Son,” then you or I, or anybody else cannot be.
Jesus doesn’t appear until John 1:14.
Click to expand...
Yes He does. The context makes it clear that that is what the passage is talking about, form verse 1 to 14.
The following also says God’s Word was made flesh in Moses: a man spoke God’s Word. But it also could have been easily worked to say that Moses turned into God Himself, if that idea wanted to be promoted.
Click to expand...
Exodus 4:15-16 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (MOSES IS GOD IN THE FLESH)
Click to expand...
That is absolute nonsense. There is no way that that can be equated or ever seen as similar to what is said in John 1. John 1 clearly states that Jesus was in the beginning with God; that He was God; that He came down from heaven and dwelt among us; that by Him all things were created and made. How can that compare with what is said about Moses?

zerinus
 
I am repeating my question : do you think Jesus could not fulfill the promise of David’s seed by being born normally?
 
zerinus said:
That is absolute nonsense. There is no way that that can be equated or ever seen as similar to what is said in John 1. John 1 clearly states that Jesus was in the beginning with God; that He was God; that He came down from heaven and dwelt among us; that by Him all things were created and made. How can that compare with what is said about Moses?

zerinus

If you say the human spirit of Jesus was there with God as God eternally then you are saying God is human not really God. That’s what the Mormons say.
Click to expand...
 
inJESUS said:
I am repeating my question : do you think Jesus could not fulfill the promise of David’s seed by being born normally?
Click to expand...
How could he when David’s promise could only be fulfilled through an unbroken line of kings starting with his own son? Since the Solomon line was broken everything had to go back to David and start all over again with a new son and a new king.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
If you say the human spirit of Jesus was there with God as God eternally then you are saying God is human not really God. That’s what the Mormons say.
Click to expand...
Don’t try to play the “Mormon card” with me. I am smarter than that! 😃

Let’s stick to the subject, shall we.

zerinus
 
FaithofAbraham said:
It had to be if he would never fail to have a son on the throne.
Click to expand...
do you mean that none other than David’s first generation son can have the throne? its not about his offsprings? can you give quotations?

and how do you reconcile this with what John wrote :

In the beginning was the Word …and the Word is God and The Word took flesh ? if Jesus is David’s son, doesn’t this make David God?
 
zerinus said:
Don’t try to play the “Mormon card” with me. I am smarter than that! 😃

Let’s stick to the subject, shall we.

zerinus
Click to expand...
The problem is misunderstanding what God’s Word means in John 1:1. God’s Word is just what God says.

Let’s say that I am spokesman for say, Bill Gates. Whatever he says I go and tell the people. To the people, I am the Word of Bill Gates.

This doesn’t mean I am the thing that comes out of his mouth. It means I receive it and repeat it as instructed.

Jesus as God’s Word doesn’t mean he is there with God eternally as a human, since God is not a human. It means God put His Word in the human Jesus, then Jesus speaks it making Jesus to be God’s Word to the people. God’s Word made flesh. But still a human prophet.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
 
FaithofAbraham said:
How could he when David’s promise could only be fulfilled through an unbroken line of kings starting with his own son?

what does this have to do with being born to no father?how can an unbroken line of kings result in virgin birth? can you explain the link cuz i dont see it?
Click to expand...
 
inJESUS said:
do you mean that none other than David’s first generation son can have the throne? its not about his offsprings? can you give quotations?

and how do you reconcile this with what John wrote :

In the beginning was the Word …and the Word is God and The Word took flesh ? if Jesus is David’s son, doesn’t this make David God?
Click to expand...
See my previous post for the way John 1:1 should read.

1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

God said to David, look, you will always have a son on the throne of Israel. Solomon’s line died, so after that David did not always have a son on the throne of Israel. God didn’t lie. God just took David’s other son Jesus and made him king instead, thereby keeping His promise to David. If not for that promise there would be no need for a virgin birth.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
If you say the human spirit of Jesus was there with God as God eternally then you are saying God is human not really God. That’s what the Mormons say.
Click to expand...
again you are confusing Trinity with the Incarnation.

What is eternal is the Fathr, His Word , His Spirit.

the second nature of the Word does NOT make God a human born on a certain time. The incarnation means the Word took an a second nature without changing the nature of God.
 
inJESUS said:
again you are confusing Trinity with the Incarnation.

What is eternal is the Fathr, His Word , His Spirit.

the second nature of the Word does NOT make God a human born on a certain time. The incarnation means the Word took an a second nature without changing the nature of God.
Click to expand...
The second nature being the man Jesus He created. When God dwells in a man and speaks we call that man a prophet, not God.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
The problem is misunderstanding what God’s Word means in John 1:1. God’s Word is just what God says.

no, God’s Word does not mean that the Father has to utter it for it to be called His Word. The Word exists without being uttered. The Logos/Wisdom of God is God.
Let’s say that I am spokesman for say, Bill Gates. Whatever he says I go and tell the people. To the people, I am the Word of Bill Gates.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
FaithofAbraham said:
The second nature being the man Jesus He created.

there is no mention of creation.

The Word creates and is not created. Even If the Word created a human flesh to come to earth, it is still the Eternal Word of God, not a creature.
When God dwells in a man and speaks we call that man a prophet, not God.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top