Question For GOPJEFF

[rtwngAvngr]

Laws have to be made.

The lack of Idolatry and blasphemy do not need laws implied in the context of a diety.

There were early humoid people who had no concept of a diety and yet they did not pray to idols nor did they blaspheme a god of which they had no concept.

I'm saying laws against idolatry and blasphemy are state recognition of god, and imply a premise of a belief in god. I still stand by that.

if there is no god why is idolatry a crime or against the law? It seemed there was an issue about a belief in god as an underlying precondition of such and such a set of laws or something.

 

[ajwps]

I'm saying laws against idolatry and blasphemy are state recognition of god, and imply a premise of a belief in god. I still stand by that.

Great... State recognition of a 'god' implies obscure concepts of idolartry and blasphemy? The problem is which 'god is approved by the state as the primary diety?

if there is no god why is idolatry a crime or against the law? It seemed there was an issue about a belief in god as an underlying precondition of such and such a set of laws or something.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are attemting to illustrate here? Which state law enforces laws against idolatry which validates any particular diety? Your precondition of such and such set of laws is not understandable to me.

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff since the NT Gospels include both the New and Old Testaments, can you tell me of one instance in which G-d the Father directly names his son?

I am not talking about indirect references Jesus sayings from St. Luke like 'those who see me also the see the Father' or 'I and the Father are one.'

Sorry for taking so long to respond... it's been a very busy week.

So, where does God directly name His Son? I have read through the thread and seen how you claim that Exodus 4:22 means that Israel is God's firstborn son, thereby disqualifying Jesus from that title. The problem is that Jesus was one person, but Israel (in the context of this verse you quote) was a nation, meaning that God's use of the word "son" is figurative in that sense.
However, God does identify His Son in the New Testament. First, at His baptism, (as Hobbit stated) "the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'" (Matt 3:16-17, NASB). Second, at the Transfiguration : "A bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!" (Matt 17:5) God confirms His relationship with Jesus, at Jesus' bequest, a few days before His execution: "(Jesus speaking) 'Now My soul has become troubled, and what shall I say, "Father, save Me from this hour"? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father glorify Thy Name.' There came therefore a voice out of heaven: 'I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.' The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, 'An angel has spoken to Him.' (Sound familiar, there, aj?) Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes." (John 12:27-30)

 

[ajwps]

Sorry for taking so long to respond... it's been a very busy week.

I am a little late in responding to your post as I have been busy for the past day or so.

So, where does God directly name His Son? I have read through the thread and seen how you claim that Exodus 4:22 means that Israel is God's firstborn son, thereby disqualifying Jesus from that title. The problem is that Jesus was one person, but Israel (in the context of this verse you quote) was a nation, meaning that God's use of the word "son" is figurative in that sense.

Please do not take this response as an attack but simply an explanation similar to the ones you make in this DISCUSSION of ours.

In Hebrew the plural form of the word son is benim but in Ex 4:22 the word is used in the singular form beni.

Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

However, God does identify His Son in the New Testament. First, at His baptism, (as Hobbit stated) "the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'" (Matt 3:16-17, NASB).

Like I asked Hobbit, is a booming voice coming out of the sky automatically assumed to be G-d's own voice or could it have been an angelic voice? Is this voice coming out with the appearance of a dove not also figuarative or an allegorical statement by the Gospels?

Second, at the Transfiguration : "A bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!" (Matt 17:5)

Same as before. Is this voice out of the cloud G-d's voice or some other being? If the voice was actually G-d's voice coming out of the cloud or sky proclaiming that Christ was he beloved son, would G-d not also proclaim that all of His sons (mankind) are beloved? Did that voice say that THIS IS MY BELOVED 'FIRST BORN OR ONLY' SON? You are only assuming that Matthew refrenced Christ was a blood relative as differentiated from all His other son creations.

God confirms His relationship with Jesus, at Jesus' bequest, a few days before His execution: "(Jesus speaking) 'Now My soul has become troubled, and what shall I say, "Father, save Me from this hour"? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father glorify Thy Name.' There came therefore a voice out of heaven: 'I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.' The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, 'An angel has spoken to Him.' (Sound familiar, there, aj?)

Yes it certainly does sound familiar. Obviously there were those present who heard the voice coming out of heaven who thought that it was not G-d but an Angel proclaiming in a thounderous voice. Does Jesus calling G-d his Father interpreted differently that you or me proclaiming that G-d is also our heavenly Father?

Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes." (John 12:27-30)

This statement from Jesus confims my interpretation. If Jesus was a god or part thereof, would he proclaim that the voice he and the others around him was really his own voice? Was Jesus a ventriloquist?

When G-d says that 'Israel is my son, my firstborn' (singular word for son) or when a loud voice comes out of the heaven or Jesus talks about his Father in heaven the believer must answer the question of who is really G-d for himself.

Jeff it really is a matter of how badly each one of us wants to believe his own faith's statements. You have been taught to believe exactly what you have been trying to give as proof of Jesus being god and I am relating what I have been taught and my understanding of the Hebrew language which Jesus himself knew.

 

[5stringJeff]

Please do not take this response as an attack but simply an explanation similar to the ones you make in this DISCUSSION of ours.

I never take the discussion of facts as an attack. Now if you called me an idiotic fanatical moron, I would take offense! (not that you have - just an example)

In Hebrew the plural form of the word son is benim but in Ex 4:22 the word is used in the singular form beni.

Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

There are a couple of problems with this interpretation.
First, if Isaiah 53 refers to Israel and not to Jesus Christ, how can the claim be made in v. 9 that his judgment/oppression was injust: "He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth." From Judges through Chronicles, there are abundant examples of the sin of Israel. God would be justified in punishing Israel for their sins; yet Isaiah 53 describes an innocent servant being punished, "poured out as a guilt offering."
Second, the servant dies. Israel has not - and the Bible is pretty clear that God is not going to let Israel die out.

Like I asked Hobbit, is a booming voice coming out of the sky automatically assumed to be G-d's own voice or could it have been an angelic voice? Is this voice coming out with the appearance of a dove not also figuarative or an allegorical statement by the Gospels?

Same as before. Is this voice out of the cloud G-d's voice or some other being? If the voice was actually G-d's voice coming out of the cloud or sky proclaiming that Christ was he beloved son, would G-d not also proclaim that all of His sons (mankind) are beloved? Did that voice say that THIS IS MY BELOVED 'FIRST BORN OR ONLY' SON? You are only assuming that Matthew refrenced Christ was a blood relative as differentiated from all His other son creations.

Yes it certainly does sound familiar. Obviously there were those present who heard the voice coming out of heaven who thought that it was not G-d but an Angel proclaiming in a thounderous voice. Does Jesus calling G-d his Father interpreted differently that you or me proclaiming that G-d is also our heavenly Father?

This statement from Jesus confims my interpretation. If Jesus was a god or part thereof, would he proclaim that the voice he and the others around him was really his own voice? Was Jesus a ventriloquist?

When G-d says that 'Israel is my son, my firstborn' (singular word for son) or when a loud voice comes out of the heaven or Jesus talks about his Father in heaven the believer must answer the question of who is really G-d for himself.

Angels in the Bible usually appeared to people, prophets, etc. God is always described as being in some kind of light, especially in Ezekiel and Isaiah. Even in the Gospels, angels appear to Mary and Elizabeth; angels also appear to Peter and Paul in the book of Acts, and they are always recognizable as such. A voice from heaven would have been recognized by the contemporary readers of the Gospels as God's voice, just as today, using a phrase like "Paris denied any wrongdoing" is understood to be the French government.

Jeff it really is a matter of how badly each one of us wants to believe his own faith's statements. You have been taught to believe exactly what you have been trying to give as proof of Jesus being god and I am relating what I have been taught and my understanding of the Hebrew language which Jesus himself knew.

That's fine. If nothing else, then you will understand the reasons I believe the things I do, and I will understand the reason you believe what you do.

 

[ajwps]

I never take the discussion of facts as an attack. Now if you called me an idiotic fanatical moron, I would take offense! (not that you have - just an example)

This is the kind of discussion, conversation or debate that I prefer without calling each other names or invectives.

There are a couple of problems with this interpretation.
First, if Isaiah 53 refers to Israel and not to Jesus Christ, how can the claim be made in v. 9 that his judgment/oppression was injust: "He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth." From Judges through Chronicles, there are abundant examples of the sin of Israel. God would be justified in punishing Israel for their sins; yet Isaiah 53 describes an innocent servant being punished, "poured out as a guilt offering."
Second, the servant dies. Israel has not - and the Bible is pretty clear that God is not going to let Israel die out.

Good points.

Isaiah 53:9

And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'

You say that there were abundant examples of the sins of Israel from Judges to Chronicles. Read your Isaiah 53:9 again. Do you think that 'done no violence' or 'no deceit in his mouth' is the equivalent as SINS?

Remember that Isaiah 53:9 was talking about a prophecy in future times. Just as Jesus time on earth was for a specific time frame and events.

One example of a future prophecy definition of this verse: During the years of the holocaust, the Nazis made G-d's first-born son Israel a grave with the wicked (ashes with the EVIL Nazis) and with the rich (gas chambers and smoke stacks said by the Nazis as their entrance to paradise or with the newly rich NAZIS who stole all the gold from their teeth and possessions) His son's tomb. The Jews had done no violence or lied to the Nazis that could be used as an excuse to murder all the men, women and children of Israel (that son of G-d, his first-born).

Then with Jesus and violence during his lifetime. How could Isaiah 53:9 refer to a non-violent Jesus who displayed violence?

Matthew 21:12

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and 'cast out all them' that sold and bought in the temple, and 'overthrew the tables' of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves

Matthew 8:32

32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, 'behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.'

What exactly does the fact that G-d had made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have to do with a future event in time in which half of His children were destroyed in Isaiah 59:3 and G-d's original covenant promise that He would never allow all of His (first-born) son to be destroyed?

Remember that the Prophets were speaking of what they were shown to them by G-d and they described future events in time frames.

So we both can read the Prophets and find things that SEEM to be those referred too.

Angels in the Bible usually appeared to people, prophets, etc. God is always described as being in some kind of light, especially in Ezekiel and Isaiah. Even in the Gospels, angels appear to Mary and Elizabeth; angels also appear to Peter and Paul in the book of Acts, and they are always recognizable as such. A voice from heaven would have been recognized by the contemporary readers of the Gospels as God's voice, just as today, using a phrase like "Paris denied any wrongdoing" is understood to be the French government.

You again are correct. No one can see G-d for He has no form, shape, substance or anything that man can visualize. But we are not talking about seeing G-d except in bright lights, burning bushes or clouds refrencing what G-d Himself is quoted as saying. We are not talking abut RECOGNIZING or INTERPRETING a voice as G-d's voice, instead we are referencing a clear quote (G-d said). For your Paris - French Government example to be valid, the NT Gospel would have had to say, "G-d's voice from the clouds said this my only son.... or G-d said I am bringing my only son back to me in the sky (ascending). But again, there were many people who witnessed Christ's ascension who thought the voice from the sky were angels only.

That's fine. If nothing else, then you will understand the reasons I believe the things I do, and I will understand the reason you believe what you do.

Mutual understanding of each other's points of view goes without saying....