B
- Status
W
w_stewart
Guest
Okay. Are you saying then that Judah or Immanuel was God and who was born?**When Israel, the Ten Tribes or the Kingdom of the North had been removed by Assyria and exchanged by Gentiles to populate the Galilee, these Gentiles were having too hard a time to get used to the Land.
They, back in Assyria, attributed the problem to the superstitious fact that they did not know how to serve the God of the Land. They tried to send some of the Israelites back to teach them how to live in the Land, but obviously, the thing was not working because the Israelites were not supposed to return.
Then the Jews in the South got exiled to Babylon for 70 years and their return was acclaimed as the return of the Messiah himself, and for the Gentiles in the North, it was welcomed as if the son of God had been reborned to be for them as as the Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God Himself, hence Immanuel, the Evelasting Father and Prince of Peace. The whole reading is found in Isaiah 9:1-6.
And this child born unto them can be verified in Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; 8:8. The child is called by the name of Judah, or Immanuel, which means God with the Gentiles.
Ben:**
A
agangbern
Guest
You saying that comment would not surprise me a bit. For even Christ was rediculed many times. And He said, no disciple is greater than his Teacher. But one thing is sure: "to show" does not mean “to entrust”. You who claim them to mean the same should present here your proof instead of making uncalled for comment.
But your belief that the corner stone is Israel cannot be read in the bible. What is written is the truth that Jesus Christ is the corner stone. Here,
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, ‘Rulers of the people and elders, 9if we are questioned today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and are asked how this man has been healed, 10let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. 11This Jesus* is
“the stone that was rejected by you, the builders;
it has become the cornerstone.”**
bible.oremus.org/?passage=Acts+4:8-13
That’s simply Replacement Theology. Jesus could never have spoken thus. You mean to say you don’t believe in the gospel of Matthew. If that is the case, then this would again bring us to the issue: Who has the authority to decide which book is Divinely inspired and which is not. The bible itself says that it is the Church.
Ben Masada;4961651:
as we deserve. (Jer. 46:28)
And taking the kingdom away from them and giving it to another is one way of chastising them. Yes, they were simply chastised. In proper time they shall also be saved, as it is written:
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=9;
Paul was writing to the Galatians, and Galatians were not Jews. Therefore, when Paul said "we brethren, are the children of promise" he was obviously referring to non-Jews, that is, the Galatians were also children of promise.
Yes, Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. For Jesus have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. So that, while the law for example says: thou shalt not kill; and that whoever shall kill shall be liable to judgment", Jesus said, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment;" (Matthew 5:22)I am glad he didn’t mention the name of the Church. Because now we can continue our argument. Yours for your church and mine for the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism. Only that I have Matthew 5:17-19 to prove it; and you have only church tradition, whose proof is as good as idle tale.
Ben:
Clearly, Jesus came to give the true meaning of the law which the Jews (Judaism) often misinterpreted. While the law for example says, An eye for an eye, and, A tooth for a tooth, Jesus said, Do not resist the evildoer; on the contrary, if someone strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;"
The Church that I believe is not based on what you call* idle tale.* It is the one built by Christ as written in Mathew 16:18. But again, it would not surprise me anymore if you simply would dismiss these truths as “idle tale” or “rediculous”.
Thank you and God Bless!
L
Lapell
Guest
Oh! You won’t find the word “trinity” in the Bible. But in the last chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus sends His Apostles, asking them to baptize those who will receive them and their message “in the name (notice: not “names”!!) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. It IS already there, Valke2. Moreover, John in his Gospel and his letters (especially the 1st letter) certainly speaks of the Father and of the Son, and in his Gospel (chapter 20), Jesus appears to His Apostles after his resurrection, and then he breathes on them (or “sends his breath on them”) and says: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” So the three persons are there too!
As for Paul in his letters… he is very specific that Jesus is the Messiah, but I would have to look into them to tell you if he was specific in the letters themselves to call Jesus (the Son of God) or to call God his Father. There is something about Jesus’ kingship ruling over every one and everything, “that is, to the exclusion of” God Himself… even there, I don’t think God is called his Father… but about Jesus’ everlasting heavenly Kingship Paul had no doubts whatsoever on it. He may not have called Jesus “the Son of God” per se, but does it mean he never knew? I haven’t heard him in person, and not everything he said we know, to my knowledge… whose invention was the Trinity supposed to be, in your view?
L
Lapell
Guest
**When Israel, the Ten Tribes or the Kingdom of the North had been removed by Assyria and exchanged by Gentiles to populate the Galilee, these Gentiles were having too hard a time to get used to the Land.
They, back in Assyria, attributed the problem to the superstitious fact that they did not know how to serve the God of the Land. They tried to send some of the Israelites back to teach them how to live in the Land, but obviously, the thing was not working because the Israelites were not supposed to return.
Then the Jews in the South got exiled to Babylon for 70 years and their return was acclaimed as the return of the Messiah himself, and for the Gentiles in the North, it was welcomed as if the son of God had been reborned to be for them as as the Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God Himself, hence Immanuel, the Evelasting Father and Prince of Peace. The whole reading is found in Isaiah 9:1-6.
And this child born unto them can be verified in Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; 8:8. The child is called by the name of Judah, or Immanuel, which means God with the Gentiles.
Ben:
L
Lapell
Guest
I must be tired to have “submitted reply” so immediately before having written a word… sorry!**(…) Then the Jews in the South got exiled to Babylon for 70 years and their return was acclaimed as the return of the Messiah himself, and for the Gentiles in the North, it was welcomed as if the son of God had been reborned to be for them as as the Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God Himself, hence Immanuel, the Evelasting Father and Prince of Peace. The whole reading is found in Isaiah 9:1-6.
And this child born unto them can be verified in Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; 8:8. The child is called by the name of Judah, or Immanuel, which means God with the Gentiles.
Ben:
I meant to say: is “Immanuel” not supposed to mean: God-with-us ? I think none of us ever said anywhere that this name would mean “God-with-the-Gentiles”! Your invention, Ben! And it isn’t said either to mean “God-with-the-Jews”, is it?
L
Lapell
Guest
But God spoke the Word in the beginning, didn’t He?**God is absolutely One. The Spirit of God is God Himself, just as Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, Eloah, and a few others names are only human perceptions of the same God through actions in Nature. Now, for Jesus to be son of God, he would have to be an Augustus Roman Emperor, because there is no such a thing in Judaism.
Ben:
A
agangbern
Guest
You could be correct. Words acknowledging a fact could come later. Just like the fact about atoms. When was the word atom introduced? But even before the word atom was introduced, atom was already a fact even before scientists were able to observe them. Therefore, the truth of a fact is not dependent on the word that is given to name or to describe that fact. So also with the word “Trinity”. The truth that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God did not depend on the formulation of the word “Trinity”. The word “Trinity” was simply introduced to name an existing fact. The fact that there are three persons in One God pre-existed the word “Trinity”.
L
Lapell
Guest
How THEN do you KNOW that “Elohim” has nothing to do with a plural either explicit or implied?**Just an affix perhaps for euphemistic purpose. In fact, if there is something I don’t claim to be is a Linguistic expert.
Ben:
V
Valke2
Guest
If Paul didn’t give textual support for the belief in trinity. Assuming he mentions it at all, then what does the allegation that he was very knoweldgable in Torah have to do with anything?
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Not only in the beginning but also till the end of his life. Don’t forget that he was part of the People whom God entrusted with His Word, according to Psalm 147:19,20.
Ben:
**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
I thought I have told here in this Forum, and even more than several times that Elohim does have everything to do with plural not only explicit but also implied. Explicitly Elohim refers to the plurality of the object “the nations, the whole world.” That’s why He became known by this extra name. Because He was understood to be not a local God but the God of all the peoples of the world. What Elohim does not even imply is plurality of the subject. I mean, Himself, Who is supposed to be absolutely One.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**No Lapell, that’s not what I mean. I do mean the Gentiles. When Israel was removed from existence, the world would not become absolutely depleted of God, because Judah would remain forever, according to the Divine promise to David in I Kings 11:36. And if you read Isaiah 8:8, he sets Immanuel and Judah as being one and the same in the same verse. Judah became spiritually known as the viceroy, so to speak, on earth.I must be tired to have “submitted reply” so immediately before having written a word… sorry!
I meant to say: is “Immanuel” not supposed to mean: God-with-us ? I think none of us ever said anywhere that this name would mean “God-with-the-Gentiles”! Your invention, Ben! And it isn’t said either to mean “God-with-the-Jews”, is it?
Ben:
**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**No, I am saying that Judah remained, according to God’s promise to David in I Kings 11:36 as God’s viceroy on earth, so to speak. In other words, it means Immanuel or God with us, (the Gentiles).
Ben:
**
V
Valke2
Guest
Let’s pretend that we were talking about Islam or a moment. And that a muslim was trying to prove that Allah was more than one. And they pointed to the use of Elohim to make their point. How would you react?
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
W
w_stewart
Guest
But Isaiah 9:6 states that a child is born and his name is to be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. The government is upon his shoulder.**No, I am saying that Judah remained, according to God’s promise to David in I Kings 11:36 as God’s viceroy on earth, so to speak. In other words, it means Immanuel or God with us, (the Gentiles).
Ben:
Now tell me, who is this child whose name is to be called God the Mighty, etc.
W
w_stewart
Guest
How do you explain Matthew 16:18?**Jesus never built a church. What he built became known as the Sect of the Nazarenes. The Church was built by Paul, and you never forget to give the credit to whom the credit is due.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
W
w_stewart
Guest
I am sorry Ben but your post #216 does not answer my question. Isaiah 9:6 is unequivocal. The name of this child is to be called God the Mighty. In other words, this child is God himself. It does not state that his name means God the Mighty.**Post # 216, please, if you don’t mind.
Ben:
- Status