No, Jesus is NOT merely an agent of God. He is God.Maybe redeem is not the right word but you know what I mean.
Even if only God can saves, this does not mean that Jesus is God. Jesus is simply an agent of God.
It was not his claim of Son of Man that they declared him guilty of blasphemy, but by his affirmative answer to the question of whether or not he was the Son of God (Mark uses the term ‘the Blessed One’ in reference to God, the other Synoptic authors use the name God).Being the Son of man does not mean that you are equal to God. It means that you have been elevated to the highest possible position. It is not blasphemy in my view, but is understandable why the Jews would think that.
Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity as well.You could argue that I am not an anglican. I believe in many anglican doctrines except a few. I guess I should change my flair to Protestant.
Then you’ll have to immerse yourself in the 1st century Church; as at that time the bible didn’t exist .I personally want to see it from the perspective view of a first jewish century christian.
There is no such thing as a mere angentNo, Jesus is NOT merely an agent of God. He is God.
Jesus claimed to be an agent of God in the bibleShaliach – the word means “agent” and “emissary” – is a halachic (Torah-legal) term for a person empowered by someone else to act in his stead. The shaliach first appears in the Torah in the person of Eliezer, whom Abraham commissioned to find a wife for his son, Isaac. Rebecca was selected and betrothed as a wife for Isaac by Eliezer – she was legally Isaac’s wife without her actual husband having ever set eyes on her or having exchanged a single word with her. In the words of the Talmud, “A person’s shaliach is as he himself.”
Son of God in the bible never means God the son. The Jews could be angry with this because he put himself on a pedestal.It was not his claim of Son of Man that they declared him guilty of blasphemy, but by his affirmative answer to the question of whether or not he was the Son of God (Mark uses the term ‘the Blessed One’ in reference to God, the other Synoptic authors use the name God).
Jesus confirms that he is indeed the Son of God, a claim that makes him equal to God and therefore the Jewish leaders declared him a blasphemer, for “who is like unto God?” (Is 44:7).
And while I’m quoting Isaiah, let’s move back a verse which has God stating “I am the first, I am the last; there is no God but me.” Hmm, sounds suspiciously similar to a verse in Revelation…something about the first and last letters of a certain alphabet…
Some scholars believed that the gospels were written before 70 A.DThen you’ll have to immerse yourself in the 1st century Church; as at that time the bible didn’t exist .
In this regard, not much has changed in the modern Church - you could pick from Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox among others to hear what they teach.
Exactly! He was placing himself on God’s pedestal with that statement. So if you believe that Jesus is truthful and not a blasphemer, there there is very little wiggle room.Son of God in the bible never means God the son. The Jews could be angry with this because he put himself on a pedestal.
Is 44:6Where does Isaiah mention being first and the last?
I also believe that the Synoptic Gospels were all written before 70 A.D. and John’s somewhere in the vicinity of 90 A.D.Some scholars believed that the gospels were written before 70 A.D
Jesus said he was sent by his Father and that he came to do the Father’s will. Again, I don’t see where you’re going with this.There is no such thing as a mere angent
Jesus claimed to be an agent of God in the bible
Do you feel like you’re somewhere in transition, still discovering what group of people you’ll land with? Or do you feel like you’ve arrived, you’ve found your people, and maybe they even have a set of official teachings that are organized in some way?I can’t deny the fact was a first century jew, and I want to understand him from a 1st century jewish perspective, not a 4th century christian one.
I believe he is an agent that was rewarded by God for his perfect obedience and submission to his will.Exactly! He was placing himself on God’s pedestal with that statement. So if you believe that Jesus is truthful and not a blasphemer, there there is very little wiggle room.
Is 44:6
How bout John 3:16Son of God in the bible never means God the son. The Jews could be angry with this because he put himself on a pedestal.
I’m a jewish rabbi living in Palestine that becomes a christian in 90AD. I’ve just read all the gospels.Do you feel like you’re somewhere in transition, still discovering what group of people you’ll land with? Or do you feel like you’ve arrived, you’ve found your people, and maybe they even have a set of official teachings that are organized in some way?
Also, thank you for responding to all these questions. It must be a little stressful.
New International Version. The easiest one for me to quote right now. (There’s a weird problem for me at least where the BIBLEDRB tag doesn’t work and just increases loading time)Which translation did you get that from?
Jesus can submit to the will of God and still be God…Whatever his will, it is inferior to that of his father. In my view he submitted to the will of God, obeyed his father and was rewarded.
Do you mean a 1st century Jew or a 1st century Christian?I personally want to see it from the perspective view of a first jewish century christian.
I would contend, with all due respect, that one of the basic, foundational doctrines of Christianity is the Doctrine of the Trinity. Even in the broad, general sense that the term protestant is used today, it still applies to Christians. To be protestant, just like Catholic and Orthodox, is to be Christian. To be protestant Christian is to believe in the Trinity.You could argue that I am not an anglican. I believe in many anglican doctrines except a few. I guess I should change my flair to Protestant.
My point is that Jesus is an agentJesus said he was sent by his Father and that he came to do the Father’s will. Again, I don’t see where you’re going with this.
Jesus is from Mary and the Holy Spirit.How bout John 3:16
The word “BEGOTTEN” means to originate. So, where else would Christ have originated except from God himself since he is God’s son (see verse) and can only be originated from God since John tells us that God sent his only begotten son.
I’ll respond to that later…New International Version. The easiest one for me to quote right now. (There’s a weird problem for me at least where the BIBLEDRB tag doesn’t work and just increases loading time)
Jesus’ will is different from the will of God, so I don’t get your point hereJesus can submit to the will of God and still be God…
1st century rabbi that becomes christianDo you mean a 1st century Jew or a 1st century Christian?
Jew: Jesus wasn’t the Messiah because he died.
Christian: Jesus is God
So, in other words, Jesus is only a prophet of God. I grant you that he was indeed a prophet (in fact, he is Priest, Prophet, and King), but in as far as you draw the line there and deny his divinity, that belief I do not share.I believe he is an agent
Maybe you do not know, but most Christians have a good knowledge of what this means and implies.My point with the Alpha and Omega is that we do not fully know the meaning of it(in context), it doesn’t appear much in Jewish literature. It is not good to conclude that Jesus is God because of this.