Bible Question: Ages of OT Patriarchs

[drtdrums]

As a Christian, I am aware of the wide variety of beliefs held within the entirety of the Christian faith. There are many schools of thought about many things, ranging from Creation to the Flood to Baptism.

One particular issue that I'm interested in hearing responses about is the ages of the patriarchs in the Old Testament.

Thanks a ton in advance for any time you spend answering this question.

[Chachie]

Are you speaking of their OT-documented longevity?

[Kosher Ham]

I think they might have been counted in dog years.

Adam was only about 132 or so when he died. Sounds reasonable to me.

Seriously though, I have heard that they counted years as months.

Which would make Adam about 77 or 78.

Still doesn't make sense though when I think about it though.

Hmm... Good question.

[Chachie]

The Sumerian creation epic goes into more detail about these things. It's what the OT creation epic is based on. According to it..
Adam ate from the tree of knowing but was expelled before eating from the tree of life, so he was not granted the same longevity as later patriarchs. 132 sounds fine to me as well.
Noah (or Ziusudra in Sumerian) was granted the longevity of the gods after dutifully preserving ours and other species throughout the Flood.

As for the question of whether these OT patriarchs and others lived as long as indicated, I believe they did but if I go into why, it'll get weird in here.

[Skins24]

Where are you all getting 132 from? :whoknows:






Edit to add: OT = 930...

[Kosher Ham]

Where are you all getting 132 from? :whoknows:






Edit to add: OT = 930...

The dog years part. :silly:

[techboy]

The Sumerian creation epic goes into more detail about these things. It's what the OT creation epic is based on.

This is a popular urban legend on the internet that hasn't been taken seriously for decades in academia. As Dr. Michael Heiser points out in an article on his blog entitled Is the Book of Genesis Plagiarized from Sumerian and Akkadian (Mesopotamian) Sources? (http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2009/09/is-the-book-of-genesis-plagiarized-from-sumerian-and-akkadian-mesopotamian-sources/)


This is a common claim by Zecharia Sitchin and those who adore him, like his webmaster Erik Parker, and Jason Martell. As I have blogged here before (here and here), this idea was common fare toward the end of the 19th century, due primarily to two historical forces: (1) the novelty of the decipherment of cuneiform material, certain items of which sounded like Genesis stories; and (2) anti-Semitism being rife within higher-critical biblical scholarship. Today, in the 21st century (and one could say since the mid 20th century), scholars of Akkadian and Sumerian do NOT hold this view. They just know better since they have a much more accurate grasp of Akkadian and Sumerian, as well as Semitic linguistics.

This morning the University of Chicago graciously posted a new e-book on the ABZU website entitled, “From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West.” It’s free, and so here’s a link to it. I recommend (unless you are a fundamentalist Sitchinite) reading the article “The Genesis of Genesis” by Victor Hurowitz. I have inserted a hyperlink to the page in the Table of Contents. Hurowitz is a professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel (so he lacks that awful Christian bias). He is a recognized expert in the interface of the Hebrew Bible and Assyriology, and serves on the steering committee of the Melammu Project, which focuses on the study of the intellectual heritage of Assyria and Babylonia in the modern East and West.

Guess what? He doesn’t agree with Sitchin and his followers that Genesis came from Sumerian and Akkadian works. What a shock. I’ve highlighted a few choice phrases in the PDF at the link so you can’t miss them. What’s even better is that the article also includes quotations from Assyriologist Wilfred Lambert that say the same thing. Who is Lambert? He’s one of the scholars Sitchin likes to quote in his books to create the impression that he (Sitchin) is doing serious research when he isn’t.

But please read it for yourself. Yes, there is a relationship between works like Enuma Elish and the book of Genesis — because they both come from the ancient Near East, not because of literary dependence. As the article points out, the real parallels to Genesis from non-biblical material do not come from Mesopotamia; they come from Ugarit. This is something that anyone who has looked at my divine council site already knows, since I point it out all the time.

Follow the links in the blog entry for more information.

As to the topic of the thread, there are several ways to read things. The Ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs In Genesis 5 (http://bible.org/article/ages-antediluvian-patriarchs-genesis-5) is an article that covers a variety of them, summarized here:


Contemporary and historical solutions to the numbers in Gen 5 show three categories of general interpretation: literal, symbolic, and fictional/symbolic. Among these solutions, there is also an interpretation that combines the literal and symbolic view. This view, as literal/symbolic, is discussed following the symbolic view.


The Literal View
Historically, the most prevalent way to take these numbers is as literal ages.1 The numbers mean what they appear at first sight to mean. This is reason enough for many. Some add reasons to this and hold that the patriarchs needed to personally pass on to future generations the wisdom and art that they learned”such a duty, it is said, could not have happened during a "normal" life span of 70 or 80 years.2 Luther states that these patriarchs also had a better diet, more sound bodies, and experienced a less developed impact of sin on the physical creation.3 Some also propose longevity based on the idea of a water vapor canopy that protected the earth from physically and genetically harmful solar radiation.4


The Symbolic View
Many also propose a symbolic use of the numbers. To lay the foundation, Waltke states that there is enough evidence for this in the Scripture that it couldn't have been coincidence,12 and Plaut states that there is a "biblical predilection for number symbolism."13 Some of these matters are in relation to the prevalence of the numbers seven and ten, known respectively in diverse ancient Near Eastern texts for their perfection and completeness. The list of ten names in Gen 5 has caused many to see an "undoubtedly" deliberate construction of the names to fit the scheme of an "optimal ten-generation pattern" which would then "lend an authentic ring" to this genealogy.14


The Literal/Symbolic View
Some suggest a system of figuring the numbers based on knowledge of ancient Near Eastern king lists and the use of a sexagesimal number system (i.e., base 60, rather than the decimal base 10). The figuring for this is essentially based on the Sumerian King List, which is a list of kings who reigned before and after the flood. In general, the numbers of some of the Sumerian texts show a predilection to the number 60.20 Because of the age longevity comparisons between the SKL and the genealogy of Gen 5, scholars searched to find a way to link the Sumerian method of reckoning numbers to the biblical text. Using the number 60 as a starting point, proposals have been made on how the large numbers of Gen 5 were actually to be seen against the backdrop of the Sumerian number system.


The Fictional/Symbolic View
Lastly, some suggest a completely fictional interpretation of the numbers of Gen 5. Although claiming that there is a good level of historicity with the names and people, Kitchen sees the numbers as "pure myth."33 Jacobs concurs that these are only legendary numbers resulting from the "fictitious reduction of the enormous numbers" found in other cultures.34 Others contend that these numbers were only meant to point the reader to a time in an "unimaginably distant past,"35 or that they were meant to show the "progressive deterioration of everything,"36 or that the numbers only are meant to signify that the patriarchs were "larger than life" and thus superior to their descendants.37

The article goes into a bit more detail about supports and criticisms of each view, with footnotes that can lead to more detailed treatments.

[twa]

Well yeah,but how old are they?:2drunks:

[Kosher Ham]

I don't think the symbolic view is what the OP is really asking.

And I love you to death tech, but I think your point sometimes may be better shown by presenting your interpretation and then showing the links to the quotes. Just my two cents.

I don't mind reading them but other people just see blah blah blah.

EDIT: Suggestions are not answers. I suggest that this is better than that is in the end....an opinion.

[Seabee1973]

Disease and illness were not rampant back then so thye were able to live a longer life also the longer life is what let people to passing on skills and such to there kids and great grandkids.

[Kosher Ham]

Disease and illness were not rampant back then so thye were able to live a longer life also the longer life is what let people to passing on skills and such to there kids and great grandkids.


I agree, they had the better fridges and stoves back then and cures for everything.

I hope this is not a real answer from you.

[DRSmith]

There are several things that have to considered first off since Adam was createed perfect he would not have died so the effects on the human aging process would take some generations to take effect an evolutionary changed as preprogrammed.

Next would the be the changes to the Earth post flood.

[DRSmith]

I agree, they had the better fridges and stoves back then and cures for everything.

I hope this is not a real answer from you.

You pick you food and kill it and eat it the same day you do not have to worry about as much.

How many diseases would they have had?

[Kosher Ham]

There are several things that have to considered first off since Adam was createed perfect .

Clearly perfection does not exist. I know that I am not perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be.


You pick you food and kill it and eat it the same day you do not have to worry about as much.

How many diseases would they have had?

Are you serious ? Wow.

[Seabee1973]

I agree, they had the better fridges and stoves back then and cures for everything.

I hope this is not a real answer from you.

Honestly its the truth as Sin and disease started to become more prevelant thats when lifespans shortened Since Adam was created perfect he didnt have any disease or illnesses that affected him. As generations went on disease and ilnesses become gradually worse. Today we can hide and mask the worsening off most disease with medicine.

[Seabee1973]

Clearly perfection does not exist. I know that I am not perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be.



Are you serious ? Wow.

Perfection did exist as earth was a created as a paradise for man when Adam sinned it ruined all that

[Chachie]

Well yeah,but how old are they?:2drunks:


Short answer from me is that they were approximately as old as the OT, the Sumerian King's List and the King's list of Berossus claims, which are all pretty similar in numbers but using different names for the kings.

The Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians all had creation and flood epics that told the same story as the OT no matter what christian sources say to refute that. The ancient Meso-American and South American cultures did too but those accounts are dated as being documented later than the OT. In other words, it happened and the whole world tells the story. The OT account is no less credible but not unique.

[Kosher Ham]

If he sinned he was not perfect.

Free will or not. A perfect world, and a perfect person has no sin.

[techboy]

I don't think the symbolic view is what the OP is really asking.

Actually, I think that's exactly what he's asking for. To put it bluntly, there's only 2 real possibilities. Either the numbers are accurate or they aren't.

If they aren't accurate, there are then a number of ways that this can be accounted for, from symbolism to "the authors just made it up".



And I love you to death tech, but I think your point sometimes may be better shown by presenting your interpretation and then showing the links to the quotes. Just my two cents.


That would be true if my point was to advance a particular interpretation, but it wasn't.

drtdrums asked for views on the topic, and so I pointed him to an overview article that discusses each of the major views, with footnotes should he want to do further research. He doesn't need to hear my opinion in order to learn more about a subject he expressed interest in.


EDIT: Suggestions are not answers. I suggest that this is better than that is in the end....an opinion.

The truth is, there are only two ways you're going to get a firm answer on a topic like this.

The first is if you start by assuming that God doesn't exist. If you do that, then obviously people don't live that long, and it's clearly made up (though even then, you have to decide if the numbers are symbolic or just fabricated).

The second, of course, is if you start by assuming that the Bible is 100% hyper-literal and accurate in every word, in which case they did live that long.

If you aren't a fundie of either the Christian or atheist variety, there are no easy answers, since if you allow for the possibility of God (avoiding camp one), then there's no reason people couldn't live as long as He wanted them to, but you can't automatically just assume that they did (avoiding camp two).

At that point, you'd have to look at outside evidence, and there is little to none, since it was so long ago. You're left wrestling with the text itself (internal evidence), and making inferences based on that limited information.

[Seabee1973]

If he sinned he was not perfect.

Free will or not. A perfect world, and a perfect person has no sin.


He was perfect till he sinned. I believe it was freewill some people say he was programmmed to sin but had he not sinned eventually someone else would have to complete Gods plan

[techboy]

The Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians all had creation and flood epics that told the same story as the OT no matter what christian sources say to refute that. The ancient Meso-American and South American cultures did too but those accounts are dated as being documented later than the OT. In other words, it happened and the whole world tells the story. The OT account is no less credible but not unique.

It's a huge jump to go from "tell similar stories" to "copied from older sources".

The first is true, to a point, though the parallels are often so vague as to be meaningless, or arise from the fact that Westerners were raised in a Judeo-Christian milleu, and so see everything through that lens (a classic example would be calling anything that involves immersion in water "baptism", which carries all manner of baggage in the west not supported in the extant texts) .

The second requires evidence that simply does not exist, which is why the theory has been roundly discredited by academia.

I'd note, by the way, that if as you're suggesting, there really was a flood, that deals a heavy blow to any "copying" hypothesis, as any parallels can be explained by the fact that they are simply relating in their own way what happened. No copying needed.

P.S. One of the primary sources cited in that blog entry is a professor at Ben Gurion University, so while your comment about "Christian" sources is a commission of the genetic fallacy, you're not even doing it right. :)

[Kosher Ham]

tech, truth is there is no firm answer, otherwise there would not be questions or controversy. But that response is exactly what will further your cause.

Seabee, simply he was not perfect.

I do have a question though for both of you...Why is Jesus not portrayed as the one without sin ?

[techboy]

tech, truth is there is no firm answer, otherwise there would not be questions or controversy.

Yeah, I think that's what I wrote. :)



I do have a question though for both of you...Why is Jesus not portrayed as the one without sin ?

He is.

[Chachie]

The Sumerian creation epic goes into more detail about these things. It's what the OT creation epic is based on. According to it..
Adam ate from the tree of knowing but was expelled before eating from the tree of life, so he was not granted the same longevity as later patriarchs. 132 sounds fine to me as well.
Noah (or Ziusudra in Sumerian) was granted the longevity of the gods after dutifully preserving ours and other species throughout the Flood.

As for the question of whether these OT patriarchs and others lived as long as indicated, I believe they did but if I go into why, it'll get weird in here.


It's a huge jump to go from "tell similar stories" to "copied from older sources".

The first is true, to a point (though the parallels are often so vague as to be meaningless).

The second requires evidence that simply does not exist, which is why the theory has been roundly discredited by academia.




My negligence is colored in the quote. My apologies. I used that phrase erroneously. I think "passed down and passed around" is more what I was going for. The fact that the Enuma Elish and the Atra Hasis are older just led me to say "based on" but I meant no slight of the Hebrew Old Testament.

As for your reply about my use of the word "christian" without including "hebrew" for specificity, it doesn't matter. Any religious source will naturally defend it's own texts as unique and special. When one steps back and looks at them all from a bird's eye view it's easy to see that we all share pretty similar lore. I personally believe them all and begrudge none of them.

[Seabee1973]

tech, truth is there is no firm answer, otherwise there would not be questions or controversy. But that response is exactly what will further your cause.

Seabee, simply he was not perfect.

I do have a question though for both of you...Why is Jesus not portrayed as the one without sin ?


He was and still is thats why you will sometimes here him called the second Adam

[Kosher Ham]

Well techboy, you said the truth is...You can not say that without proof same as others can not say otherwise. I know that it is a faith thing and I appreciate that and respect that about you.

And as far as the Adam/Jesus thing...wouldn't both of them be the son of God ? I never hear anyone say the things about Adam that they say about Jesus. And a prayer to Adam ? Yeah right.

[Kosher Ham]

He was and still is thats why you will sometimes here him called the second Adam

But...Adam was a sinner.

Not trying to be funny here but hear me out...

Was Jesus the equivalent of Terminator 2 or 3 ? Bigger better smarter ?

Does the second Adam mean the second child that failed ? Or the second child to lead the world ?

[techboy]

My negligence is colored in the quote. My apologies. I used that phrase erroneously. I think "passed down and passed around" is more what I was going for. The fact that the Enuma Elish and the Atra Hasis are older just led me to say "based on" but I meant no slight of the Hebrew Old Testament.

I see. Yes, it is most probable that stories of a flood were circulating before the book of Genesis was written.

It's less established that the Jews would have had any contact with those cultures at the time of compositon, and there is pretty much no evidence that the borrowing was "literary".

In other words, even if there was influence, it wasn't that the Hebrew writers took earlier stories and just copied them. At most, they might have told a similar story in their own way.

Which, as you say, is also explained by the idea that they were all talking about an event in their common memory.


Well techboy, you said the truth is...You can not say that without proof same as others can not say otherwise.

You might want to read that quote again. I said the truth is that there are only two ways to be certain, and that is to either begin with the assumption that God does not exist, or to begin with the assumption that the Bible is the 100% hyperliteral pure inerrant word of God.

I think that's indisputable.



I know that it is a faith thing


Hardly. I'm stuck in the middle somewhere with all the non-fundies.



And as far as the Adam/Jesus thing...wouldn't both of them be the son of God ? I never hear anyone say the things about Adam that they say about Jesus. And a prayer to Adam ? Yeah right.

Adam was human. Jesus was wholly human and wholly God. This also explains how they can both start sinless, but only one could end that way.

[Kosher Ham]

Therefore there is no certainty which again leads me back to faith.

That Adam/Jesus thing...nope still does not make sense.

How could a perfect human not be godly and free of sin ? Especially the supposed first man. We all had our rebellious years.

[Sandman69]

Very ironic. My wife and I were discussing their ages today after picking up a new bible and a Children's version for our son.

Someone mentioned that Noah was blessed for his service to the lord with the building of the arc. But the arc itself took over 100 years to build. Did all of mankind live that long?

I can understand Adam, until he ate the apple. But what of the others that live many 100 years, some close to a 1000 years. Couldn't it all be simply explained by different measurements of years and time?

I am a firm believer, but I tend to feel that the 7 days of creation were not our current 7 days, and quite possibly millions or billions of years.

[Kosher Ham]

Ageed Sandman.

Thank you.

[Sandman69]

Therefore there is no certainty which again leads me back to faith.

That Adam/Jesus thing...nope still does not make sense.

How could a perfect human not be godly and free of sin ? Especially the supposed first man. We all had our rebellious years.

He was perfect until Eve was created... I keed I keed

God gave man free will, which turned a perfect man into less than perfect.

But in that argument, I suppose he ultimately wasn't wholly perfect. However, that was god's plan for mankind, I believe. So he was perfect for the job at hand.

[Chachie]

Therefore there is no certainty which again leads me back to faith.

That Adam/Jesus thing...nope still does not make sense.

How could a perfect human not be godly and free of sin ? Especially the supposed first man. We all had our rebellious years.


Isn't it "born sinless?" Adam didn't die sinless.

[Sandman69]

Isn't it "born sinless?" Adam didn't die sinless.

That works for me.

[techboy]

Therefore there is no certainty which again leads me back to faith.

It is certain that there is no certainty (on this particular issue, unless one falls into one of the two camps), but that is a certainty. ;)



How could a perfect human not be godly and free of sin?

Being godly does not mean being God. And clearly, although Adam was created without sin (assuming one reads the story literally), he wasn't perfect.

And, of course, many Christians don't take Genesis literally.

[techboy]

Isn't it "born sinless?" Adam didn't die sinless.

Sometimes there's no need to write a novel. It's good for me to be reminded of that occasionally. :ols:

[Sandman69]

Sometimes there's no need to write a novel. It's good for me to be reminded of that occasionally. :ols:

I will have to read into some of the links you posted. Thanks! Find it very fitting to see this topic after the conversation with my wife.

Also, Techboy you said there were two groups, those that don't believe, and those that believe and take the Bible as 100%. IMO, there should be a third. Those that believe and understand that the Bible could be written in areas non-literally. Especially, for Genesis.

I believe that God made everything, including Dinosaurs ;)

[Seabee1973]

I will have to read into some of the links you posted. Thanks! Find it very fitting to see this topic after the conversation with my wife.

Also, Techboy you said there were two groups, those that don't believe, and those that believe and take the Bible as 100%. IMO, there should be a third. Those that believe and understand that the Bible could be written in areas non-literally. Especially, for Genesis.

I believe that God made everything, including Dinosaurs ;)

There are some people in that third group

[Unforgiven]

It's a nice story written to help answer questions of an ancient tribal people thousands of years ago (The story of Genesis). It really shouldn't be taken literally.

It runs counter to ever piece of physical evidence ever discovered (and the common sense you were born with).

Realizing this doesn't mean you can't believe Jesus was who he said he was or why he was here.

[techboy]

Also, Techboy you said there were two groups, those that don't believe, and those that believe and take the Bible as 100%.

No, I said that there were two groups that would be certain about a topic like this (fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Biblical hyperliteralists).

[techboy]

Seriously though, I have heard that they counted years as months.


As a side note, the article I linked mentions this, then points out in a footnote that by this method, Enoch would have been 5 when he had his son Methuselah! :ols:

[CrabR]

IBeing godly does not mean being God. And clearly, although Adam was created without sin (assuming one reads the story literally), he wasn't perfect.

Job 1:8
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.



And, of course, many Christians don't take Genesis literally.

Its called picking and choosing, most pretend Leviticus does not exist. How many would become xians if they started the bible from the beginning and read it. My daughter wanted to go to summer bible school when she was in 9th grade. I said ok on the condition she had to start reading the Bible from Genesis

She decided it was not for her after reading how Lots got drunk and his daughters then had sex with him. the final straw for her was when Noah got drunk and his son had his way with him

I never once interpreted it for her, she came to that conclusion all on her own. I have always encouraged my kids to never believe what they hear rather research it themselves and draw their own conclusions

[Thiebear]

tech, truth is there is no firm answer, otherwise there would not be questions or controversy. But that response is exactly what will further your cause.

Seabee, simply he was not perfect.

I do have a question though for both of you...Why is Jesus not portrayed as the one without sin ?

Not a religious person myself, but everything i've read/seen on the t.v.
Jesus is God and the way to heaven, there is no way but through him.
(doesnt' matter what you say, doesn't matter what your works represent).

Jesus is portrayed as perfection and without sin...
he was born of God by immaculate conception, not some lowly Joseph.
he did not die of sin but for our sins giving us a clean slate to to write upon to him.

[Sandman69]

No, I said that there were two groups that would be certain about a topic like this (fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Biblical hyperliteralists).

Fair enough, but I contend the third group would be certain as well. Maybe not to the point of being certain what their ages were. However, they would be certain of the uncertainty ;)

As far as "picking and choosing" from the Bible. I think you can take it all and understand it. Not just read the books that make you feel warm and fuzzy. Early on Mankind turned into a being of many sins, which many were put into the text of the Bible.

[drtdrums]

Very ironic. My wife and I were discussing their ages today after picking up a new bible and a Children's version for our son.

Someone mentioned that Noah was blessed for his service to the lord with the building of the arc. But the arc itself took over 100 years to build. Did all of mankind live that long?

I can understand Adam, until he ate the apple. But what of the others that live many 100 years, some close to a 1000 years. Couldn't it all be simply explained by different measurements of years and time?

I am a firm believer, but I tend to feel that the 7 days of creation were not our current 7 days, and quite possibly millions or billions of years.

I'm actually thinking about starting a thread on this, as well, due to the great response from this thread.

[DRSmith]

If he sinned he was not perfect.

Free will or not. A perfect world, and a perfect person has no sin.

If one does not sin they remain perfect but once they sin they become imperfect.

The same as a skinny can become fat they were not always fat they became that way by their life choices.

[DRSmith]

He was perfect till he sinned. I believe it was freewill some people say he was programmmed to sin but had he not sinned eventually someone else would have to complete Gods plan

There was no plan that needed sin to be

A plan of salvation is something put into effect after.

The plan God had for Adam was to be fruitfill and fill the Earth.

[drtdrums]

If one does not sin they remain perfect but once they sin they become imperfect.

The same as a skinny can become fat they were not always fat they became that way by their life choices.

This touches on yet another question I'm curious to see the answer to, but I'll save it for later =)

Keep the thoughts coming, guys. Good stuff.

[Seabee1973]

There was no plan that needed sin to be

A plan of salvation is something put into effect after.

The plan God had for Adam was to be fruitfill and fill the Earth.

God had a plan for everything just depending on how things went. if he didnt then he could have given Adam more chances

[DRSmith]

God made the rules knows what He wants and can adjust to make things happen.

God is not going to be derailed by His creation

[Riggo-toni]

Like Tech, I am neither fundie nor pure skeptic. Personally I just can't see how anyone could read the OT and think the bible must be taken literally. The Israelites were late bronze/early iron age people with strong political/theological disputes between North and South, Aaronid and Mu$hite priesthoods. It's fairly clear to an objective observer that these disputes found their way into the works of the OT. Theologically speaking, it seems central themes such as obedience, compassion, righteous living, etc are more important than details, especially historical ones. I don't think any of the Patriarchs lived to the absurd ages given in Genesis; rather I think the writers were trying to convey a reverence for hallowed ancestors by exaggerating their lifespans as a sign that God granted them long lives. Numerology also seems to be a factor in everything. I find it hard to believe all the occurrences of 40 represent actual chronology, nor can I believe the Abraham's wife was so smoking hot at 80+ years that he had to lie about her being his sister to make sure a foreign king would keep his hands off her.

[Chachie]

Genesis Chapter 2

9 And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every Tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the Tree of Life also in the midst of the Garden; and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any Tree of the Garden you may eat freely;

17 But from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."




We assume Adam never got around to eating from the Tree of Life due to his expulsion from Eden but the passage does not say that tree was forbidden before he ate from the tree of knowledge, only after when God placed cherubim as guards and a "flaming sword" that surrounded the tree of life to keep humans away. I have no idea why he lived so long. Perhaps his vitals were so hearty and pure, having been created by God? The generations after him leading up to the flood also lived about as long as him, almost as if a slight "divinity" resided in their genetic makeup. Interestingly, the patriarchs who came along after the flood had lifespans that dropped off steeply almost right away as if to indicate that the purity and heartiness was "wearing off" with time. One thing is for sure- Adam's pre-flood bloodline had longevity that later generations didn't. I cannot help but wonder if the Tree of Life was the key somehow.

Total speculation on my part, obviously.. but food for ponder.

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc173/Chalzbunz/life-span-of-bible-patriarchs-befor.jpg

[Sandman69]

Genesis Chapter 2

9 And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every Tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the Tree of Life also in the midst of the Garden; and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any Tree of the Garden you may eat freely;

17 But from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."




We assume Adam never got around to eating from the Tree of Life due to his expulsion from Eden but the passage does not say that tree was forbidden before he ate from the tree of knowledge, only after when God placed cherubim as guards and a "flaming sword" that surrounded the tree of life to keep humans away. I have no idea why he lived so long. Perhaps his vitals were so hearty and pure, having been created by God? The generations after him leading up to the flood also lived about as long as him, almost as if a slight "divinity" resided in their genetic makeup. Interestingly, the patriarchs who came along after the flood had lifespans that dropped off steeply almost right away as if to indicate that the purity and heartiness was "wearing off" with time. One thing is for sure- Adam's pre-flood bloodline had longevity that later generations didn't. I cannot help but wonder if the Tree of Life was the key somehow.

Total speculation on my part, obviously.. but food for ponder.


As good an explanation as any. Very interesting. Or perhaps he did eat from the tree of life which caused the longevity, and it passed on to his initial offspring.

[10fttall]

The talk about "perfection" seems to be driving everybody nuts. Think of it this way. There are different types of perfection. Adam and Eve had perfect BODIES. Their soul was created perfect but capable of imperfection. This means that their physical bodies would live for a long freaking time. When they were thrown out of the Garden, they "died" spiritually and began to die physically. The world began to break down once entropy began after the fall.

Why would they have needed refrigerators and modern conveniences to live that long? People of that time, and every time since, have known how to make a living and survive. Sure, it would be hard for me or you, but each era has people who thrived, as it was all they ever knew. If you started out with a perfect body, and succeeding generations closer to perfect, aged slower, and all that; why wouldn't you live hundreds of years?

[Kosher Ham]

. If you started out with a perfect body, and succeeding generations closer to perfect, aged slower, and all that; why wouldn't you live hundreds of years?

Because Adam was not perfect to begin with.

[Seabee1973]

Because Adam was not perfect to begin with.


But he was perfect to begin with

[Kosher Ham]

But he was perfect to begin with


Clearly not.

Perfection does not have weakness.

[talk show host]

There are several things that have to considered first off since Adam was createed perfect he would not have died so the effects on the human aging process would take some generations to take effect an evolutionary changed as preprogrammed.

Next would the be the changes to the Earth post flood.

I agree with this assessment. Adam was created perfect. The bible says the wages of sin is death. Logically, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died and still be alive today. Scientists do not fully understand aging; however many theorize that it's essentially nothing more than a genetic defect. Cells should keep replacing themselves indefinitely but for some reason they just stop. Some scientists even think some day the process can be slowed or stopped. Reguardless, if aging is genetic and Adam was perfect at one point, it makes sense that each generation after him would live shorter and shorter lives until leveling off, which is what the bible account shows

[authentic]

I agree with this assessment. Adam was created perfect. The bible says the wages of sin is death. Logically, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died and still be alive today. Scientists do not fully understand aging; however many theorize that it's essentially nothing more than a genetic defect. Cells should keep replacing themselves indefinitely but for some reason they just stop. Some scientists even think some day the process can be slowed or stopped. Reguardless, if aging is genetic and Adam was perfect at one point, it makes sense that each generation after him would live shorter and shorter lives until leveling off, which is what the bible account shows

Well, we just have to admit that, at the end of the day, the knowledge of man (scientists) is limited. There are somethings that they will never have an answer for. For example, what does a soul/spirit of a person look like? And why does the soul/spirit leave the body at the time of death? I think these are simple, but yet profound questions.

[Kosher Ham]

For example, what does a soul/spirit of a person look like? And why does the soul/spirit leave the body at the time of death? I think these are simple, but yet profound questions.


You would have to believe those things exist to begin with though.

[Chachie]

I don't think Adam was born "perfect" if he did not have whatever the trees of knowledge and life provided. To say he was born perfect with the potential to live forever is saying he was like God... isn't it? I don't know- help me out here.

[10fttall]

To say he was born perfect with the potential to live forever is saying he was like God... isn't it? I don't know- help me out here.

God is much more than perfect and everlasting. He is perfect, everlasting, all knowing, all powerful etc....Adam was born with a perfect PHYSICAL BODY. If he was born entirely perfect, he would have been a ROBOT. God created the first humans With perfect bodies and the capacity to self determine their actions. Why on earth does a mental choice to sin preclude Adam from starting with a perfect body? And then it follows that after he sinned, God allowed the process of change and decay to kick in. Adam started with a perfect body, and his descendants were nearly so, and they went downhill from there because the world was now cursed. So the lifespans went down, down, down- until hygiene and medicine swung it back a little.

[Chachie]

Adam started with a perfect body, and his descendants were nearly so, and they went downhill from there because the world was now cursed. So the lifespans went down, down, down- until hygiene and medicine swung it back a little.


It makes sense because God told Adam that if he eats from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would surely die. God didn't say when. He simply told Adam he would die, so it makes perfect sense that Adam became mortal after sin, despite living long after his expulsion from Eden.

[Kosher Ham]

A perfect man would have known to use some soap and water. Smelly people are far from perfect.

[Zguy28]

nor can I believe the Abraham's wife was so smoking hot at 80+ years that he had to lie about her being his sister to make sure a foreign king would keep his hands off her.Actually, he didn't lie. She was his sister. Same dad, different mom.

[DRSmith]

Clearly not.

Perfection does not have weakness.

A perfect person with free will makes the choice to sin.

[DRSmith]

For example, what does a soul/spirit of a person look like? And why does the soul/spirit leave the body at the time of death? I think these are simple, but yet profound questions.

Or better yet is man a soul as the bible says or is as Plato wrote in Phadeo death is just the soul escaping the body.

[Chachie]

We could also explore the possibility that Earth, before the Flood (for which there is ample scientific evidence that indicates did happen), had an entirely different atmosphere than it does post-flood. Perhaps our planet did not receive as much harmful solar radiation then.

Or even the possibility that the two trees in the garden of Eden were allegories for the DNA "tree." Maybe God removed something from our DNA that was present for pre-flood generations.

[Kosher Ham]

A perfect person with free will makes the choice to sin.


Free will does not mean sinful.

Perfect does not include the ability to even choose to commit a sin.

[DRSmith]

Free will does not mean sinful.

Perfect does not include the ability to even choose to commit a sin.

Never said free will meant sinful just Adam had frewill and was perfect and made the decision to sin.

You ever wonder why Jesus had to be perfect?

Or do you believe Jesus was not perfect?

[Kosher Ham]

Never said free will meant sinful just Adam had frewill and was perfect and made the decision to sin.

You ever wonder why Jesus had to be perfect?

Or do you believe Jesus was not perfect?

I do not believe Jesus was perfect.

I do not believe that anyone is or was perfect.

Perfect parts and aspects is still an opinion.

[DRSmith]

Interesting than you believe God created defective beings and then punished them for being defective.

[Kosher Ham]

Interesting than you believe God created defective beings and then punished them for being defective.

Sad isn't it.

[talk show host]

Free will does not mean sinful.

Perfect does not include the ability to even choose to commit a sin.

So then Jesus was not perfect? Because Satan presented him the opportunity to sin three times in the wilderness. And if you want to argue that because Jesus was perfect and it was not possible for him to accept Satans offer then that would mean that either Jesus had no free will or it was all just a charade

[Chachie]

Come on, friends. This thread has been pretty cool so far. Tech and I could have gone nuclear on each other early on but elected to recognize that we're all neighbors here. I'm learning from him in too many other threads to spoil that here. Besides, he'd have flattened me with links and rhetoric I'm just too lazy to keep up with. Anyway, my point is that this can be a really good thread that could go far beyond the age topic if we just avoid confrontation.

Perhaps the OP might even edit the thread title to "Biblical Questions." (?)


I really enjoy the subject matter and if we have a shot at making a place on ES where believers and non-believers could actually discuss.... Ha! Nah. Forget I mentioned it. I'm embarrassed I even considered such an outlandish scenario. :)

[Sandman69]

Free will does not mean sinful.

Perfect does not include the ability to even choose to commit a sin.

I disagree. Free will obviously does not mean sinful, however, it also doesn't mean the inability to sin.

I believe God gave Adam freewill, and him being all knowing, expected Adam to eat from the tree that he forebode him to eat from. Since God is all knowing, shouldn't he know such things?

If he wanted mankind to avoid the path we went down, he could have simply created Adam, without freewill.

Also, how is Jesus not perfect?

[mardi gras skin]

Numerology also seems to be a factor in everything.

Riggo, have you read anything by Bruce Malina? He's New Testament but I think you'd find his work interesting.

[Seabee1973]

I don't think Adam was born "perfect" I don't know- help me out here.

He was actually created perfect

[Seabee1973]

We could also explore the possibility that Earth, before the Flood (for which there is ample scientific evidence that indicates did happen), had an entirely different atmosphere than it does post-flood. Perhaps our planet did not receive as much harmful solar radiation then.

Or even the possibility that the two trees in the garden of Eden were allegories for the DNA "tree." Maybe God removed something from our DNA that was present for pre-flood generations.

I actually brought up that in another thread about the different atmosphere.

[Sandman69]

I actually brought up that in another thread about the different atmosphere.

Yeah that is an interesting take on things. Though, being banished from the Garden of Eden and being told by God he would surely die, could answer it much simpler.

Though, the chart that Chach put up, if the numbers are accurate, could lead to something to back up such a belief.

[mardi gras skin]

He was actually created perfect

This whole perfect conversation is hard for me to resolve with what I know of the Hebrew language and culture. I don't think they conceived flawlessness as the absolute and immutable state we imagine it today.

Even the Hebrew God doesn't appear to be immutable. He is perfect in the sense that He is complete. God is complete, creation is not. Neither God nor creation are static in a perpetual state of philosophical perfection.

Ah, I should just keep quiet...good night.

[10fttall]

Put it a different way, why wouldn't Adam be perfect? If we start with the premise that God created the man, are we saying that He is powerful enough to create a being, but he didn't get the physics quite right? Now, this is not to be confused with Adam's mind and spirit. They were created with the ability to choose and think whatever Adam wanted. If Adam was unable to sin, humans would've been pretty pointless. If he was not capable of choosing, he would have been a complex paperweight or a computer. Again, this has no connection to his body.

But really, what is the point of wondering? If we don't believe it, we don't believe it. What's the point of believing any of it? Do we think that part of the Bible is useful and most of it isn't? Why not just say screw it and say that it's alla fairy tail? Don't act like there really was an Adam, but, oh, he was REALLY only 80 when he died? Really? Why even bother? If we don't even believe Jesus was perfect, why bother? If he wasn't perfect, there's not much point to the whole thing. He claimed to be the savior, the Son of God. So...let's see, that means that he was a big phony and a liar, but, hey, let's respect what he said because he was a "good man?" If that's the way it is, you or I could say any random thing and have just as much authority as Jesus, because, presumably, we are not pathological liars or nutcases.

[Seabee1973]

This whole perfect conversation is hard for me to resolve with what I know of the Hebrew language and culture. I don't think they conceived flawlessness as the absolute and immutable state we imagine it today.

Even the Hebrew God doesn't appear to be immutable. He is perfect in the sense that He is complete. God is complete, creation is not. Neither God nor creation are static in a perpetual state of philosophical perfection.

Ah, I should just keep quiet...good night.

I believe he maded the first human and angels perfect he held angels to ahigher standerd as to why there is no salvation plan for fallen angels This was intended as paradise but that plan ended when ADAM sinned and would have ended eventually when you have free will some one will eventually fall away.

[Seabee1973]

Yeah that is an interesting take on things. Though, being banished from the Garden of Eden and being told by God he would surely die, could answer it much simpler.

Though, the chart that Chach put up, if the numbers are accurate, could lead to something to back up such a belief.

When he sinned he died a spiritual death. eventually had he not sinned someone else would have.

[techboy]

This whole perfect conversation is hard for me to resolve with what I know of the Hebrew language and culture. I don't think they conceived flawlessness as the absolute and immutable state we imagine it today.

Cultural and linguistic context has no place in this discussion, dummy. Just grab your King James, pick your favorite one-liner about Adam or Job or Noah, and go to town!

If Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus and Paul, it's good enough for me!

[mardi gras skin]

I believe he maded the first human and angels perfect...

I understand, but what our culture imagines perfect to be isn't something the ancient Hebrew mind would have considered. We're burdened with the perspective of western philosophical concepts of idealism that the ancient Hebrew wouldn't have imagined.

We see the word "sinless" and we imagine a state of perfection. But the word "sinless" doesn't have to do with a state of inner perfection or flawlessness. It is a relational term. It means that a person is with God. Modern humans are concerned with the effects of "perfection" that we imagine to be the result of being with God, but that wasn't in the Hebrew mind. When creation was with God it was sinless...it was very good or complete. As God's creation lives without God, it is sinful...it is very bad or incomplete. That's what they mean by sinless. Perfect like a child and mother, not like a mathematical equation.

The idea that a human could be perfect in the sense of perpetual flawlessness would have been foreign to the Hebrews and the early Christians. They were seeking completion, not flawlessness.

[mardi gras skin]

Cultural and linguistic context has no place in this discussion, dummy. Just grab your King James, pick your favorite one-liner about Adam or Job or Noah, and go to town!

Its hard. I think its reasonable for modern Westerners to relate the idea of flawlessness to sinlessness. And, philosophically speaking, they could be right in a way. But it was liberating for me to understand that sinlessness had to do with communion with God rather than an inner state of perfection. I wish our cultural and linguistic distance from the Bible didn't mask that.

[mardi gras skin]

Put it a different way, why wouldn't Adam be perfect?

Are you asking a philosophical question? Because God didn't create a god. If he had chosen to create gods, humanity would have been flawless. Do you believe Adam was a god?

[Zguy28]

Its hard. I think its reasonable for modern Westerners to relate the idea of flawlessness to sinlessness. And, philosophically speaking, they could be right in a way. But it was liberating for me to understand that sinlessness had to do with communion with God rather than an inner state of perfection. I wish our cultural and linguistic distance from the Bible didn't mask that.I see what you are saying, but how does that relate to the Apostolic teaching on sin, purity, virtues, and fruits of the Spirit?

[Sandman69]

Perhaps the word "perfect" should not be used then. I see where Mardi Gras is coming from, and I sort of see it that way as well. I may have used perfect earlier, but it makes more sense to say that God created Adam to be without sin. Not necessarily, perfect.

Because, I guess the only perfect being would be God, and Jesus, since he was God in the flesh.

[DRSmith]

I don't think Adam was born "perfect" if he did not have whatever the trees of knowledge and life provided. To say he was born perfect with the potential to live forever is saying he was like God... isn't it? I don't know- help me out here.

Was he not created in God's image?

[DRSmith]

Sad isn't it.

To believe such yes it is.

[DRSmith]

I believe he maded the first human and angels perfect he held angels to ahigher standerd as to why there is no salvation plan for fallen angels This was intended as paradise but that plan ended when ADAM sinned and would have ended eventually when you have free will some one will eventually fall away.

Who says Adam and Eve have any chance?

They like the angels made the perfect decision to willfully sin.

Abel would be the first righteous man to die.

[DRSmith]

Perhaps the word "perfect" should not be used then. I see where Mardi Gras is coming from, and I sort of see it that way as well. I may have used perfect earlier, but it makes more sense to say that God created Adam to be without sin. Not necessarily, perfect.

Because, I guess the only perfect being would be God, and Jesus, since he was God in the flesh.


That creates a few problems

1 This means God can sin

2 In order for the sacrifice to be equal Jesus had to be fully man just like Adam

3 Never mind all the contradictions this would create in regards to the bible.

[mardi gras skin]

I see what you are saying, but how does that relate to the Apostolic teaching on sin, purity, virtues, and fruits of the Spirit?

That the Apostles were not talking about being a self sustaining person that is flawless. Christians all know that they aren't perfect and that they are dependant on God, but when we read those passages you're talking about we hear "you aren't good enough, you aren't good enough, you aren't good enough." If we understood sin as a relational concept, we would hear, "Come back to me." Instead of a theology of guilt (contrasting our life with an idealized perfection) we experience a theology of fellowship.

Those passages aren't saying "You can do better". They're saying, "Life is much better when you're with God."

[mardi gras skin]

That creates a few problems

1 This means God can sin

Huh? How can God not be with God?

If sinlessness communicates completion of relationship to God rather than flawlessness in relation to an imagined ideal, it's impossible for God to be imperfect.

[Sandman69]

That creates a few problems

1 This means God can sin

2 In order for the sacrifice to be equal Jesus had to be fully man just like Adam

3 Never mind all the contradictions this would create in regards to the bible.

1 - God creating Adam with freewill, does not mean God can sin. It means God created man with freewill, who can in turn sin if they choose.

2 - No he was not fully man in the same sense as Adam was. Adam didn't rise from the dead. The flesh of Jesus' died and being God rose to return to Heaven to await for the rapture.

3 - What are these contradictions?

[DRSmith]

1 - God creating Adam with freewill, does not mean God can sin. It means God created man with freewill, who can in turn sin if they choose.

2 - No he was not fully man in the same sense as Adam was. Adam didn't rise from the dead. The flesh of Jesus' died and being God rose to return to Heaven to await for the rapture.

3 - What are these contradictions?

If Jesus could not sin then there was no poin in Satan tempting Jesus.

Being raised from the dead does not make one God many people in the bible were raised from the dead.

No man has seen God at anytime.

No man may see my face and live.

John 3 would hqave to change to read God loved the world so much He came to Earth.

Since Jesus is called an apostle (one who is sent) who sends God anywhere?

[DRSmith]

Huh? How can God not be with God?

If sinlessness communicates completion of relationship to God rather than flawlessness in relation to an imagined ideal, it's impossible for God to be imperfect.

One has to look at the usuage of the world God in the bible since it means more than the Almighty Being

[techboy]

But it was liberating for me to understand that sinlessness had to do with communion with God rather than an inner state of perfection.

Interestingly, the same word in Hebrew used to describe Job as "perfect" is also used of inanimate objects elsewhere in Scripture.

This also fits with the Christian teaching that God sees us as sinless not because of our own worthiness, but because of our relationship with Him through His Son.

It's a very consistent way of viewing Scripture.


Was he not created in God's image?

Sure, but that clearly doesn't mean he had all the attributes of God.



2 In order for the sacrifice to be equal Jesus had to be fully man just like Adam

Jesus was fully man and fully God.



Being raised from the dead does not make one God many people in the bible were raised from the dead.

You are confusing being raised from the dead and the eschatological concept of resurrection.

The difference is that a resurection is permanent with a glorified body, which is why it's tied to the end of times and the restoration of Israel in 2nd Temple Judaism. The righteous would be rasied again to live forever, in fully restored, incorruptible, perfect bodies.

Dr. Darrell Bock makes reference to this in this blog entry (http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/270):


(1) The testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is rooted in a Jewish and Chrsitian view about the afterlife which was a hoped for physical resurrection of a real body, which is why Jesus' death and resurrection can be a first fruits analogy of the hope Paul argues Christians have. In other words, Paul's claim is "just like Jesus so for us one day." So Jesus MUST be raised physically for our hope to mean anything (vv 17-19). The Jewish roots of this view reaches back into resurrection hope as articulated in 2 Macc 7:9-11, 14:46 as well as texts in 4 Macc. 18:6-23. Ironically I had a post on the importance of this text earlier this year. The 2 Maccabees text makes it clear that the Pharisaical view and those of intertestamental Jews was that one day it would be their physical body that would be restored TO ITS FORMER STATE although in a glorified form.

(2) Not all the perspective of this resurrection event comes from Scripture as point 4 claims. There is a key Christian variation Doherty ignores. It is the idea of a resurrection in the midst of history. In Jewish texts, the resurrrection takes place before the end of history, before the judgment. If this event had been made up simply on Jewish precedent, then one would have expected the preaching to be God will raise up Jesus at the end and then Jesus will lead the judgment. However, this is not the message. There is a Christian "mutation" or variation on the Jewish view. Jesus was raised after three days. He was raised APART from all others within history, not at its end. Something caused those differences. The testimony of our sources is that a resurrection after three days did so. (In fact, one could ask how the three days was so solidified into the tradition if the story was being made up. Why are there not a variety of scenarios in terms of the timing?)

In the Maccabees text Dr. Bock refers to, the Jewish martyrs wave their hands and other body parts at their enemies, taunting them and basically saying "Go ahead and cut them off! We'll get them back at the end!"

By contrast, a guy like Lazarus wasn't resurrected, because he died again.

For an indepth discussion on this topic, I would point you to chapter 4 of The Resurrection of the Son of God (http://books.google.com/books?id=-Zh4Yf2YvxMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+resurrection+of+the+son+of+god&hl=en&ei=ZUbMS_O3D4KglAe0rNGaBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), which is entitled: "Time to Wake Up: Hope Beyond Death in Post-Biblical Judaism". It's around 65 pages, and quite thorough (with further extensive footnotes). I'll just quote from the summary on page 205:


But nobody imagined that any individuals had already been raised, or would be raised in advance of the great last day. There are no traditions about prophets being raised to new bodily life; the closest we come to that is Elijah, who had gone bodily to heaven and would return to herald the new age. There are no traditions about a Messiah being raised to life; most Jews of this period hoped for resurrection, many Jews of this period hoped for a Messiah, but nobody put these two hopes together until the early Christians did so. (316) It may be obvious, but it needs saying: however exalted Abraham, Iasaac and Jacob may have been in Jewish thought, nobody imagined they had been raised from the dead. However important Moses, David, Elijah and the prophets may have been, nobody claimed that they were alive again in the 'resurrection' sense. The martyrs were honored, venerated even; but nobody said they had been raised from the dead. The world of Judaism had generated, from its rich scriptural origins, a rich variety of beliefs about what happened, and would happen, to the dead. But it was quite unprepared for the new mutation that sprung up, like a totally unexpected plant, within the already well-stocked garden.

This might feel a bit like a sidetrack, but it's not. Neither the Jews or early Christians thought of any of the people you're talking about as resurrections, and they were, of course, intimately familiar with the stories you're referencing.

Jesus was resurrected, in time, which is totally different, and did point to his nature as God. Your point is flawed.



John 3 would hqave to change to read God loved the world so much He came to Earth.

You ignore John 1, of course, which explicitly states that Jesus is God, in favor of this string of incredibly faulty logic.

This link (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03f.html) will take you to Glenn Miller's excellent list of all of the explicit and implicit claims of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers that he was God. I'll elaborate on a couple of the most historically verifiable claims below.

The high Christology of the early Church came from Jesus himself. One example of this comes from the Parable of the Tenants.


Mark 12 (ESV)
The Parable of the Tenants
1(A) And he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted(B) a vineyard(C) and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and(D) leased it to tenants and(E) went into another country. 2When the season came, he sent a servant[a] to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3(F) And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4(G) Again(H) he sent to them another servant, and(I) they struck him on the head and(J) treated him shamefully. 5(K) And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. 6He had still one other,(L) a beloved son.(M) Finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 7But those tenants said to one another,(N) 'This is the heir. Come,(O) let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8And they took him and killed him and(P) threw him out of the vineyard. 9What will the owner of the vineyard do?(Q) He will(R) come and destroy the tenants and(S) give the vineyard to others. 10(T) Have you not read(U) this Scripture:

(V) "'The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;[b]
11this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"
12And(W) they were seeking to arrest him(X) but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they(Y) left him and went away.

Before we look at what this saying of Jesus is, uh, saying, I'd like to take a moment to explain why I chose this passage.

One of the things Jesus scholarship tries to do is determine what, if anything, can be determined about the life, works, and sayings of Jesus in an historical sense. Scholars only take seriously those things that can be verified via one or more historical criteria. It doesn't mean that other things in the text didn't happen, necessarily, just that they can't be proven.

It turns out that the Parable of the Tenants is accepted as an authentic saying of Jesus by scholars, even the most radical (such as the infamous Jesus Seminar, which famously voted and found only about 20% of the sayings of Jesus to be authentic).

There are a number of reasons for this. The saying is early, and multiply and independently attested. It is unlikely to be a later Christian invention, because, among other reasons, it includes no mention of ressurection. It also has been found to be very accurate in terms of actual absentee landowner practices of the day, historically, and it reflects and employs stock images found in rabbinic parables of the day, so it coheres with a Jewish mileu.

So, it's pretty much accepted that this is a provably genuine saying of Jesus. As Dr. Craig Evans (his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Evans)) notes in his Fabricating Jesus ( http://books.google.com/books?id=PmbUAAAACAAJ&dq=Fabricating+Jesus:+How+Modern+Scholars+Distort+ the+Gospels) on page 138:


When understood properly and in full context, everything about the wicked vineyard tenants- including its context in the New Testament Gospels- argues that it originated with Jesus, not with the early church.

But what is Jesus saying? In this parable, as in other rabbinic parables of the day, the Vineyard is Israel and the owner is God (a common reference because of Isaiah 5). The tenants are the Jewish religious leaders (which is why they are angered). The servants are the prophets of God, sent to Israel, but beaten, turned away, and sometimes killed (as the history of the Old Testament shows).

And then we come to the son, Jesus. The son in this parable is the owner's only son. He is unique. He is more important than the servants. He is last to be sent.

This passage clearly shows that Jesus thought he was the Son of God, unique in relationship, above all the prophets. Further, in this passage, he predicts his own death at the hands of the Jewish authorities, outside the walls of Jerusalem.

All of this was blasphemy to the Jewish leadership, as can be seen from their reaction, and is why they eventually had him killed.

Another reason to believe that the historical Jesus had a divine self-understanding is found in Grant's Jesus on page 160 (emphasis is the author's):


But Jesus' specific claim that, as inaugurator of the Kingdom of God, he was able to forgive sins seemed, as the Pharisees and scribes had already noted in Galilee, to lend a sinister overtone to his own assertion, or the assertion of his disciples, that he was God's son. For since Jews regarded the forgiveness of sins as the prerogative of God alone, the claim to confer this forgiveness, especially if supported by a claim to the Sonship of God, implied that he himself was divine; in which case the sacrosanct Jewish monotheism was deliberately breached.

So, we have two historically supported authentic sayings of Jesus, accepted as genuine by even the most skeptical scholars, that tell us that Jesus had a divine self-understanding. Also keep in mind that Jesus was Jewish, so to claim to be divine could only mean one thing.

Again, consider the reaction of the Jewish authorities. They knew what Jesus was claiming.

[Sandman69]

If Jesus could not sin then there was no poin in Satan tempting Jesus.


Because Satan thought he wasn't perfect? However, Did he ultimately sin?



Being raised from the dead does not make one God many people in the bible were raised from the dead.


There are plenty of verses in the Bible that say Jesus is God.

Romans 9:6—“Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen”
Philippians 2:5-8— ... Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God.... He who is ‘in the form of God’ is God.”
Timothy 3:16—“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
Micah 5:2— ... Christ has always existed because He is not a created being; He is God Almighty who has existed from everlasting.


That is just a handful. There are MANY references to Christ being Lord/God.



No man has seen God at anytime.

No man may see my face and live.
His actual form's face, perhaps. But clearly Jesus was seen.



John 3 would hqave to change to read God loved the world so much He came to Earth.

Since Jesus is called an apostle (one who is sent) who sends God anywhere?

Perhaps. However, all the other references in the Bible that state he was God would need to be changed since John contradicted them in your mind. Unless, of course the Son of God is actually God.

Apparently, God sends God.

[Chachie]

Wow. A lot has transpired here since I last visited this thread! I'm too busy at work today but I'll get back in tonight and catch up. Great stuff, guys.

[Riggo-toni]

Riggo, have you read anything by Bruce Malina? He's New Testament but I think you'd find his work interesting.

Thanks - I'll check that out. By the way, you might like a book called These Stones Cry Out by a guy named Price. He's an pro-Christian archaeologist. The book's an easy read.

It was weird but interesting going from reading that to reading Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed - he's a minimalist whose thesis was the OT was written under Josiah's reign to justify retaking the North after the collapse of the Assyrians.

[DRSmith]

Because Satan thought he wasn't perfect? However, Did he ultimately sin?

So you are trying to say Satan who knew he was the son of God thought he was not perfect?


There are plenty of verses in the Bible that say Jesus is God.

Romans 9:6—“Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen”
Philippians 2:5-8— ... Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God.... He who is ‘in the form of God’ is God.”
Timothy 3:16—“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
Micah 5:2— ... Christ has always existed because He is not a created being; He is God Almighty who has existed from everlasting.


That is just a handful. There are MANY references to Christ being Lord/God.


His actual form's face, perhaps. But clearly Jesus was seen.



Perhaps. However, all the other references in the Bible that state he was God would need to be changed since John contradicted them in your mind. Unless, of course the Son of God is actually God.

Apparently, God sends God.

There is not one verse in the bible that says Jesus is God Almighty.

Romans 1 shows clearly Paul knew they were seperate people

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]8 First of all, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ concerning all of YOU, because YOUR faith is talked about throughout the whole world. 9 For God, to whom I render sacred service with my spirit in connection with the good news about his Son, is my witness of how without ceasing I always make mention of YOU in my prayers

Since God is a spirit to exist in his form is to be a spirit.

As for 1 Timothy 3:16 there is no bible manuscript pre 9 CE that has God there they have Who.

As for Micah 5:2 the wording there is the same as is used in Proverbs 8:22-31 which many writings from men such as Justin Martyr say is speaking about Jesus and would then would fit perfectly with Revelation 3 which declare Jesus as the beginning of creation by God.

[DRSmith]

You ignore John 1, of course, which explicitly states that Jesus is God, in favor of this string of incredibly faulty logic.





You mean John 1 where the word is towards the God but it does not say the was the God?

The term the God is also used to describe who raised Jesus from the dead in Acts and who created Jesus in Revelation.

One thing people seem to over look is God's law was always about balance eye for eye tooth for tooth life for life.

In order for the perfect balance in the ransom the person ransomed had to be exactly the same as Adam.

Fully human perfect and capable of choosing to sin or remain obedient.

[Sandman69]

So you are trying to say Satan who knew he was the son of God thought he was not perfect?


I wasn't saying categorically that he thought that. However, being Satan, of course he thought he could sway even Jesus. You think if Satan thought he was perfect he wouldn't even try. Satan is a vain beast and would think he could do just that.




There is not one verse in the bible that says Jesus is God Almighty.

Romans 1 shows clearly Paul knew they were seperate people



Perhaps not in those exact words, but there are plenty that say He is of and is God.

So Paul thought they were separate "people"? ... Really?

Paul also in Collosians 1 says
"13 - Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 - In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 - Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 - And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
"

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."
Luke 7:16 "And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people."
2 Corinthians 4:4 "lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. "



You mean John 1 where the word is towards the God but it does not say the was the God?

You mean this John 1:1? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Also, John 1:10 "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Jesus being the "He" made the world. Clearly, God made the world. Clearly God is Jesus, Jesus is God.
and John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My Lord and my God.

Perhaps, you are hung up on him being the Son of God and relating that to a man's son.

Many believe The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost are one in the same. Of which there is plenty to back that up.



One thing people seem to over look is God's law was always about balance eye for eye tooth for tooth life for life.


Except when God spoke to Noah after the flood

Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Doesn't sound so eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, or life for life, to me. God's Law was given to us via the 10 Commandments. Which, doesn't say anything of the like.

[techboy]

There is not one verse in the bible that says Jesus is God Almighty.

Observers will notice, please, how carefully this statement is structured. Jesus is called God (by himself and others) in the texts of the New Testament countless times, but it never uses the exact word "Almighty", so he must not be God. :doh:

In point of fact, as I mentioned in post 109, there are many places in the New Testament that Jesus implicitly or explicitly is called God, including passages seen by historians to be genuine sayings of Jesus (not that the others aren't genuine, just that it's harder to prove historically speaking).

The link at the beginning of that post, The NT Witness: Summary--The Deity of Jesus Christ (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03f.html) is a good summary of the dozens of places Jesus is called God either implicitly or explicitly, for example.

For those who might like more, A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5909) by Dr. William Lane Craig is an excellent article which summarizes much of the evidence for, and goes into mind-numbing detail about, the orthodox conception of the Trinity, why the Church accepted it, and the history behind it and other concepts such as Arianism and Modalism. It's a great article for anyone that wants to know more about it, but our interest here is primarily in this excerpt from the introduction:


One of the most noteworthy developments in contemporary philosophy of religion has been the ingress of Christian philosophers into areas normally considered the province of systematic theologians. Inasmuch as many theologians, either in the thrall of post-modernism or safely sequestered in harbor of biblical theology, have largely abdicated their traditional task of formulating and defending coherent statements of Christian doctrine, it has fallen to Christian philosophers to take up this challenge. One of the most important Christian doctrines to have attracted philosophical attention is the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is remarkable that despite the fact that its founder and earliest protagonists were to a man monotheistic Jews, Christianity, while zealous to preserve Jewish monotheism, came to enunciate a non-Unitarian concept of God. On the Christian view God is not a single person, as traditionally conceived, but is tri-personal. There are three persons, denominated the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God, not three. This startling re-thinking of Jewish monotheism doubtless grew out of reflection on the radical self-understanding of Jesus of Nazareth himself and on the charismatic experience of the early Church. Although many New Testament critics have called into question the historical Jesus’ use of explicit Christological titles, a very strong historical case can be made for Jesus’ self-understanding as the Son of man (a divine-human eschatological figure in Daniel 7) and the unique Son of God (Matt. 11.27; Mk. 13.2; Lk. 20.9-16). Moreover, something of a consensus has emerged among New Testament critics that in his teachings and actions—such as his assertion of personal authority, his revising of the divinely given Mosaic Law, his proclamation of the in-breaking of God’s Reign or Kingdom into history in his person, his performing miracles and exorcisms as signs of the advent of that Kingdom, his Messianic pretensions to restore Israel, and his claim to forgive sins—in all these ways Jesus enunciated an implicit Christology whereby he put himself in God’s place. The German theologian Horst Georg Pöhlmann reports,

"This unheard of claim to authority, as it comes to expression in the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, is implicit Christology, since it presupposes a unity of Jesus with God that is deeper than that of all men, namely a unity of essence. This . . . claim to authority is explicable only from the side of his deity. This authority only God himself can claim. With regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of behavior; either to believe that in him God encounters us or to nail him to the cross as a blasphemer. Tertium non datur.1"

Moreover, the post-Easter church continued to experience the presence and power of Christ among them, despite his physical absence. Jesus himself had been a charismatic, imbued with the Spirit of God, and the Jesus movement which followed him was likewise a charismatic fellowship which experienced individually and corporately the supernatural filling and gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was thought to stand in the place of the risen and ascended Christ and to continue in his temporary absence his ministry to his people (Jn. 7.39; 14.16-17; 15.26; 16.7-16; Rom. 8.9, 10; Gal. 4.6).

In the pages of the New Testament, then, we find the raw data which the doctrine of the Trinity later sought to formulate in a systematic way. The New Testament church remained faithful to its heritage of Jewish monotheism in affirming that there is only one God (Mk 12.29; Rom. 3.29-30a; I Cor. 8.4; Jas. 2.19; I Tim. 2.5). In accord with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament (Is. 63.16) and the teaching of Jesus (Mt. 6.9), Christians also conceived of God as Father, a distinct person from Jesus His Son (Mt. 11.27; 26.39; Mk. 1.9-11; Jn. 17.5ff). Indeed, in New Testament usage, “God” (ho theos) typically refers to God the Father (e.g., Gal. 4.4-6). Now this occasioned a problem for the New Testament church: If “God” designates the Father, how can one affirm the deity of Christ without identifying him as the Father? In response to this difficulty the New Testament writers appropriated the word for God’s name (Yahweh) in the Old Testament as it appears in Greek translation in the Septuagint (kyrios = Lord) and called Jesus Lord, applying to him Old Testament proof-texts concerning Yahweh (e.g., Rom. 10.9, 13). Indeed, the confession “Jesus is Lord” was the central confession of the early church (I Cor. 12.3), and they addressed Jesus in prayer as Lord (I Cor. 16.22b). This difference-in-sameness can lead to odd locutions like Paul’s confession “we believe in one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (I Cor. 8.6). Furthermore, as this passage intimates, the New Testament church, not content with use of divine nomenclature for Christ, also ascribed to him God’s role as the Creator and Sustainer of all reality apart from God (Col. 1. 15-20; Heb 1.1-3; Jn 1.1-3). In places restraint is thrown to the winds, and Jesus is explicitly affirmed to be (ho)theos (Jn. 1.1, 18; 20.28; Rom. 9.5; Heb. 1.8-12; Tit. 2.13; I Jn. 5.20). Noting that the oldest Christian sermon, the oldest account of a Christian martyr, the oldest pagan report of the church, and the oldest liturgical prayer (I Cor. 16.22) all refer to Christ as Lord and God, Jaroslav Pelikan, the great historian of Christian thought, concludes, “Clearly it was the message of what the church believed and taught that ‘God’ was an appropriate name for Jesus Christ.”2

Finally, the Holy Spirit, who is also identified as God (Acts 5.3-4) and the Spirit of God (Mt. 12.28; I Cor. 6.11), is conceived as personally distinct from both the Father and the Son (Mt. 28.19; Lk 11.13; Jn. 14.26; 15.26; Rom. 8. 26-27; II Cor. 13.14; I Pet. 1.1-2). As these and other passages make clear, the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, but a personal reality who teaches and intercedes for believers, who possesses a mind, who can be grieved and lied to, and who is ranked as an equal partner with the Father and the Son.

In short, the New Testament church was sure that only one God existed. But they also believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while personally distinct, all deserved to be called God. The challenge facing the post-apostolic church was how to make sense of these affirmations. How could the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each be God without there being either three Gods or only one person?

The italics are the author's, but I bolded one part, because it highlights what I was talking about vis a vis non-Trinitarian arguments only seeming to make sense in English.

The Septuagint was a Greek Torah translated by 70 Jewish scholars (thus the name) centuries before Jesus, and where the Hebrew put YHWH, the Septuagint used Kyrios, which just happens to be the the exact term applied to Jesus.

We know that the authors of the New Testament used the Septuagint, because of the way they quote the Torah at times. They knew what they were doing, and that was calling Jesus God. Not a little God, not "mighty but not almighty", not an angel, but God. End of story.

Consider also this passage from N.T. Wright's book, What Saint Paul Really Said (http://books.google.com/books?id=vybsZVMWAAEC&dq=Paul+Jesus+kyrios&source=gbs_navlinks_s) (pages 70-72):


These three central passages are of vital importance. They give the lie both to the suggestion that Paul did not, after all, identify Jesus very closely with the one God of Jewish monotheism, and to the opposite suggestion, that Paul was a Hellenist who, in divinizing Jesus, broke completely away from Jewish monotheism and invented, in effect, a new form of paganism. Neither of these will do.

These three passages do not stand alone. Once we have grasped the point which is, I think, seen clearest in them, dozens of other pieces of data cry out to be mentioned. In particular, we might notice Paul's use of the phrase 'Son of God'. In Judaism, this usually refers either to Israel or, more specifically, to the king. It in no way suggests that the person concerned is part of the very being of God himself. For Paul, too, it remains true that the phrase still carries overtones of royal messiahship, and of Israel's identity as YHWH's true Son. But, equally, there should be no doubt that he has rethought the phrase, so that now, when he uses it, it means far more than previous Jews had meant by it. When he speaks of God 'sending his Son', in Galatians 4 and Romans 8; when he combines 'father' and 'son' in formulae, and indeed when he speaks of God as 'father' in close conjunction with a mention of Jesus Christ- then it appears that, for him, 'Son of God' has become a technical term with a new meaning. If we allow Paul to use his terms in his own way, I believe we are forced to conclude that the phrase meant both the Messiah, in whom Israel's destiny is summed up and the one who is sent, like Wisdom, from the creator, to accomplish his saving purposes. Paul discovered that in the language of messiahship there lay a hidden, hitherto unexploited potential. There is no tension, for him, between Jesus being the totally human Messiah, the representative of Israel, and the one who is sent as it were from God's side, to do and be what only God can do and be. Paul, in short, seems to have held what generations of exegetes have imagined to be an impossibility; a thoroughly incarnational theology, grounded in a thoroughly Jewish worldview.

The same point can be made through the word Kyrios or 'Lord'. I emphasized in the previous chapter that calling Jesus Kyrios flew directly in the face of the claims of Caesar. It is also clear, from a good many of the passages where Paul uses this word of Jesus (including, of course, two of those we have just examined) that it is for him a way of aligning Jesus personally, one-on-one, with the word Kyrios in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), where it regularly stands for YHWH, the not-to-be-pronounced Name of God. 'All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved'. That verse (Romans 10:13) refers clearly to calling on the name of Jesus, to confessing Jesus specifically as Kyrios (10:9) and believing that God raised him from the dead. Yet the verse is a direct quotation from the prophet Joel (2:32, or 3:5 in the Greek version), where the natural assumption is that 'the Lord', Kyrios, is YHWH himself. Paul is not stupid. Again and again he is making the point, cryptically, which emerges into the light in the three passages we have examined more extensively, and in such startling lines as Romans 9:5, which introduces and prefigures precisely the point of 10:9-13: from the Jewish race comes the Messiah according to the flesh- who is also God over all, blessed for ever. (The attempts of worried scholars to find alternative ways of understanding this verse remain profoundly unconvincing).

It was Paul's belief and contention, then, that at the heart of Jewish monotheism- within the oneness of the one God- lay a plurality, a reciprocal relationship. This, of course, strained the borders of human language, even the God-given language of scripture; but one could clearly 'recognize the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Again, the italics are the author's. Paul knew what he was writing, and he was writing that Jesus was God. The English can be twisted, but the Greek cannot.

For that matter, the Jews of the day knew what Jesus was claiming. From Mark 2:1-12 (ESV):


1And when he returned to(A) Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3(B) And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4And when they could not get near him because of the crowd,(C) they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5And when Jesus(D) saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son,(E) your sins are forgiven." 6Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7"Why does this man speak like that?(F) He is blaspheming!(G) Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8And immediately Jesus,(H) perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? 9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? 10But that you may know that(I) the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— 11"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." 12And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and(J) glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Notice that the scribes accuse Jesus of blasphemy. Only God has the prerogative to forgive sins.

Or John 8:49-58 (ESV):


48The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and(CF) have a demon?" 49Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon, but(CG) I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50Yet(CH) I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51Truly, truly,(CI) I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never(CJ) see death." 52The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon!(CK) Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet(CL) you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never(CM) taste death.' 53(CN) Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?" 54Jesus answered, (CO) "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.(CP) It is my Father who glorifies me,(CQ) of whom you say, 'He is our God.'[c] 55But(CR) you have not known him.(CS) I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be(CT) a liar(CU) like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56(CV) Your father Abraham(CW) rejoiced(CX) that he would see my day.(CY) He saw it and was glad." 57So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"[d] 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was,(CZ) I am." 59So(DA) they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Here, Jesus uses the divine name "I AM" (from Exodus). Alternate explanations that try to say that Jesus was really just saying he was around before ignore the fact that this is not the kind of thing that would get you stoned for blasphemy. The Jews knew what Jesus was claiming.

The fact is that while a 21st century Westerner, working in English from a bad translation (even in English the Bible is clear in many places that Jesus is God, like John 1:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?search=john%201:1&book=john&chapter=1&verse=1)... check the excellent translation notes at the bottom for the reason why they all translate it as "the Word was God") might be able to overlook or ignore all the places and ways Jesus is called God, the 1st century Palestenian Jew would not have been able to.

And, of course, if Jesus is God, then the Trinity is sort of a foregone conclusion.



Romans 1 shows clearly Paul knew they were seperate people

See above. Paul uses Kyrios, i.e. Yahweh, i.e. God.


Since God is a spirit to exist in his form is to be a spirit.

Another example of how you are imposing your 21st century thinking on the text. Judaism, with its strict monotheism, also understood the concept of incarnation. See JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm), by NT Wright:


“GOD” IN FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM
What did first century Jews, including Jesus and his first followers, mean by “god”? This is obviously the place to start. Their belief can be summed up in a single phrase: creational and covenantal monotheism.[8]

Some theologies, e.g., ancient Epicureanism and modern Deism, believe in a god, or gods, but think they have nothing much to do with the world in which we live. Others, like Stoicism, believe that god, or “the divine,” or “the sacred” is simply a dimension of our world, so that “god” and the world end up being pretty much the same thing. Both of these can give birth to practical or theoretical atheism. The first can let its “god” get so far away that he disappears. This is what happened with Marx and Feuerbach in the nineteenth century, allowing the “absentee landlord” of eighteenth-century Deism to become simply an absentee. The second can get so used to various “gods” around the place that it ceases to care much about them. This is what happened with a good deal of ancient paganism in Greece and Rome, until, as Pliny wryly remarks, the arrival of Christianity stirred up pagans to a fresh devotion to their gods.[9]

The Jews believed in a quite different “god.” This god, YHWH, “the One Who Is,” the Sovereign One, was not simply the objectification of forces and drives within the world, but was the maker of all that exists. Several biblical books, or parts thereof, are devoted to exploring the difference between YHWH and the pagan idols: Daniel, Isaiah 40-55, and a good many Psalms spring obviously to mind. The theme is summed up in the Jewish daily prayer: “YHWH our God, YHWH is one!”[10]

Classic Jewish monotheism, then, believed that (a) there was one God, who created heaven and earth and who remained in close and dynamic relation with his creation; and that (b) this God had called Israel to be his special people. This twin belief, tested to the limit and beyond through Israel’s checkered career, was characteristically expressed through a particular narrative: the chosen people were also the rescued people, liberated from slavery in Egypt, marked out by the gift of Torah, established in their land, exiled because of disobedience, but promised a glorious return and final settlement. Jewish-style monotheism meant living in this story and trusting in this one true God, the God of creation and covenant, of Exodus and Return.

This God was utterly different from the pantheist’s “one god.” This is an important point to note: many, including many scholars, have blithely assumed that because Stoics and others talked about “one god” they were saying the same thing as the Jews. This God was also utterly different from the far-away ultra-transcendent gods of the Epicureans. Always active within his world, did he not feed the young ravens when they called upon him?[11]—he could be trusted to act more specifically on behalf of Israel. His eventual overthrow of pagan power at the political would be the revelation of his overthrow of the false gods of the nations. His vindication of his people, liberating them finally from all their oppressors, would also be the vindication of his own name and reputation. In justifying his people, he would himself be justified. In his righteousness, his covenant faithfulness, they would find their own.

This monotheism was never, in our period, an inner analysis of the being of the one God. It was always a way of saying, frequently at great risk: our God is the true God, and your gods are worthless idols. It was a way of holding on to hope. We can see the dynamic of this monotheism working its way out in the manifold crises of second-temple Judaism, with the Maccabees, Judas the Galilean, and above all the two wars of the late 60s and early 130s A.D. revealing how the creational and covenantal theology and worldview remained at work through the period and in different groups.

This God was both other than the world and continually active within it. The words “transcendent” and “immanent,” we should note, are pointers to this double belief, but do not clarify it much. Because this God is thus simultaneously other than his people and present with them, Jews of Jesus’ day had developed several ways of speaking about the activity of this God in which they attempted to hold together, because they dared not separate, these twin truths. Emboldened by deep-rooted traditions, they explored what appears to us a strange, swirling sense of a rhythm of mutual relations within the very being of the one God: a to-and-fro, a give-and-take, a command-and-obey, a sense of love poured out and love received. God’s Spirit broods over the waters, God’s Word goes forth to produce new life, God’s Law guides his people, God’s Presence or Glory dwells with them in fiery cloud, in tabernacle and temple. These four ways of speaking moved to and fro from metaphor to trembling reality-claim and back again. They enabled Jews to speak simultaneously of God’s sovereign supremacy and his intimate presence, of his unapproachable holiness and his self-giving compassionate love.

Best known of all is perhaps a fifth. God’s Wisdom is his handmaid in creation, the firstborn of his works, his chief of staff, his delight. God’s Wisdom is another way of talking about God present with his people in the checkered careers of the patriarchs and particularly in the events of the Exodus. Wisdom becomes closely aligned thereby with Torah and Shekinah.[12] Through the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs 1-8, the creator has fashioned everything, especially the human race. To embrace Wisdom is therefore to discover the secret of being truly human, of reflecting God’s image.[13]

I still find it extraordinary that nobody ever taught me all this when I was in seminary. The word “god” was a given, its meaning assumed, just at the moment when the word was going to explode in our faces. Nor can we look to Jewish scholars for help at this point, since they, by and large, have not been interested in the topic as such. So NT scholars have just assumed that, if first century Jews were monotheists, they could not in any way have anticipated trinitarian thinking. This I believe to be a huge category mistake at both ends. First, as systematic theologians would of course remind us at once, the point of trinitarian theology is precisely that it is monotheistic, not tri-theistic. Second, as I seem to be one of the only people, who keep on saying, first century Jewish monotheism was never in any case a numerical analysis of the being of the one God. Rather, as I have set out extremely briefly here, there were five ways (not to be confused with Aquinas’ five Ways!) in which second-Temple Jews could and did speak of the activity of the one God within the world, and particularly within Israel, without of course compromising their monotheism. I cannot stress too strongly that first century Judaism had at its heart what we can and must call several incarnational symbols, not least the Torah, but particularly the Temple. And, though this point has been routinely ignored by systematic theologians from the second century to the twentieth, it is precisely in terms of Torah and Temple that the earthly Jesus acted symbolically and spoke cryptically to define his mission and hint at his own self understanding.

Emphasis mine. Notice, please, especially "the Word" and "Firstborn", which is language used by Paul and John, language used in Judaism to talk about God.

Again, it's not enough to read the Bible in English with your 21st century Western brain. You have to read it in the original language, as a 1st century Palestinian Jew would have.



As for 1 Timothy 3:16 there is no bible manuscript pre 9 CE that has God there they have Who.

You are correct that the original text probably doesn't include "God" there:

From the NETBible notes (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Ti&chapter=3#v24):


24 tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

Read in context, though:


3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions 19 to you 3:15 in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves 20 in the household of God, because it is 21 the church of the living God, the support and bulwark of the truth. 3:16 And we all agree, 22 our religion contains amazing revelation: 23

He 24 was revealed in the flesh,

vindicated by the Spirit, 25

seen by angels,

proclaimed among Gentiles,

believed on in the world,

taken up in glory.

it's pretty clearly treating Jesus as God, even having a hymn (worship) about him. Only God is worthy of worship.



You mean John 1 where the word is towards the God but it does not say the was the God?

Pick the one you like (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=1). The text says "the word was God".

Notice again, by the way, that "The Word" is itself an incarnation of God in Judaism.



In order for the perfect balance in the ransom the person ransomed had to be exactly the same as Adam.

Exactly the same as Adam?

You mean sinless, creator of all things, existent from the beginning, accepting worship as his due, able to forgive sins and modify, change, or abrogate God's Law?

That kind of same? :ols:



Fully human perfect and capable of choosing to sin or remain obedient.

Fully human and fully God.

[CrabR]

IF Jesus was God then everyone would have died who looked at him

Exodus 33:20
he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.

1 Timothy 6:16
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us

That is why they invented the 3 gods rolled into a trinity of 1

[techboy]

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You take one verse, in English, totally out of context textually and culturally, and you try to make some kind of point with it. In this case, you don't even quote the entire verse. :ols:

Here is the passage, in context (NETBible version):


1:1 In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3 1:2 The Word 4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created 5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created 6 that has been created. 7 1:4 In him was life, 8 and the life was the light of mankind. 9 1:5 And the light shines on 10 in the darkness, 11 but 12 the darkness has not mastered it. 13

1:6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 14 1:7 He came as a witness 15 to testify 16 about the light, so that everyone 17 might believe through him. 1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify 18 about the light. 1:9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, 19 was coming into the world. 20 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created 21 by him, but 22 the world did not recognize 23 him. 1:11 He came to what was his own, 24 but 25 his own people 26 did not receive him. 27 1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name 28 – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born 29 by human parents 30 or by human desire 31 or a husband’s 32 decision, 33 but by God.

1:14 Now 34 the Word became flesh 35 and took up residence 36 among us. We 37 saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, 38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John 39 testified 40 about him and shouted out, 41 “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, 42 because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 43 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but 44 grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father, has made God 47 known. 48

Emphasis mine. Forget John 1:1 for a second, which couldn't be any more clear... the text identifies Jesus as God in the very next words! Very convenient to leave that part out.

You'd ask us to believe that the author of John forgot the point he started in John 1:1 very clearly (that Jesus was God), within the next sentence? :doh:

And again, culturally/religiously, this is consistent with the monotheistic Judaism of the day. Go back and wade through my last post until you come to the article by NT Wright, if you haven't. Jewish thought included incarnations of God in things like His Word and Wisdom, none of which killed anyone, or compromised monotheism.

[drtdrums]

Just a quick note here:

Techboy's posting of John 1 is right on target, imho. It is here that we encounter the idea that Christ is the embodiment of Logos, and this concept is why Christianity is so radically different from other religions. This is the formula for how and why Christianity "works".

I'm at work, so I can't go into this further, but in my opinion, techboy has been crushing this particular argument out of the ballpark. I'm happy to step back and continue watching the homerun derby.

[CrabR]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You take one verse, in English,

I gave more than one verse

not in English, out of context do not understand culture, not entie verse. You make excuses for your book, just as i used to.

According to you only 60 year old men who are fluent in Hebrew & Aramaic and have PHDs in ancient history,anthropology,Ethnology and Palaeography can understand the Bible god gave to man so he could understand how iot get ti his heaven

I used to be gullible also and make the same excuses as you

[mardi gras skin]

According to you only 60 year old men who are fluent in Hebrew & Aramaic and have PHDs in ancient history,anthropology,Ethnology and Palaeography can understand the Bible god gave to man so he could understand how iot get ti his heaven

I used to be gullible also and make the same excuses as you

You are confident that you are sufficiently informed to refute 2000 years of theology using the text to prove itself wrong. Really?

[techboy]

I gave more than one verse

All one-liners, all equally lacking historical, cultural, and textual context, all ignoring how they interact with one another.

I just pointed out the most egregious example, because you'd have us believe the author somehow lost track of what he was trying to write within the same verse. :ols:



According to you only 60 year old men who are fluent in Hebrew & Aramaic and have PHDs in ancient history,anthropology,Ethnology and Palaeography can understand the Bible god gave to man so he could understand how iot get ti his heaven

People of the day understood fine.

People today, who can't read Hebrew and Greek, and might not understand the subtleties of Palestenian thought, require the help of experts, yes.

That's why we have translations, so people may read the Bible in their own language.

More than that is not generally needed, but if you're going to choose to twist and mangle and misquote and misunderstand with a deliberate agenda that becomes apparent when you do things like quote only half of a single verse, then sometimes a little more information is needed.

Fortunately, we have access to such things. I can assue you that I am not a 60 year old man who is fluent in Hebrew & Aramaic and has PHDs in ancient history,anthropology,Ethnology and Palaeography. :)



I used to be gullible also and make the same excuses as you

Yeah, I get it. You were raised in a fundamentalist Christian faith with a ridiculously narrow view of Biblical inerrancy and a view that inerrancy was the most central doctrine, and it all fell apart at some point, unsurprisingly.

Now you're a fundamentalist atheist with a ridiculously narrow view of Biblical inerrancy and a view that inerrancy is the most central doctrine.

Like most fundamentalists, you quote from the King James because it has archaic language that makes it easier to "proof text" whatever you'd like, and you quote single verses (and sometimes not even that much :ols:) out of context for the same reason.

Same battle and tactics, just on the other team.

[CrabR]

You are confident that you are sufficiently informed to refute 2000 years of theology using the text to prove itself wrong. Really?


Yep. Funny the Jews,muslims and Xians cannot agree on who Jesus was after 2000 years of theology using the same text

I have actually read the bible, more than once. It does not take a brain surgeon to understand it. Went i was a xian i believed anything that went against the book was the work of Satan. Sign of a cult tells you do not believe anything except for what we tell you to believe

It was written by man for man and is filled with silly and laughable things, Just a combination of mythology,history and religion rolled into one.

[CrabR]

All one-liners, all equally lacking historical, cultural, and textual context, all ignoring how they interact with one another.


You are predictable, you want them to read a certain way.

You can put this in the proper context for us. all the translations seem to agree
33:20 Hebrew OT:
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת־פָּנָי כִּי לֹא־יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי׃

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
King James Bible
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
American King James Version
And he said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
American Standard Version
And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live.
Darby Bible Translation
And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for Man shall not see me, and live.
English Revised Version
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live.
Webster's Bible Translation
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
World English Bible
He said, "You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live."
Young's Literal Translation
He saith also, 'Thou art unable to see My face, for man doth not see Me, and live;'

Tell me when all these bible folks had visions of God how do you know it was not the devil as no one knows what God looked like

[techboy]

Sign of a cult tells you do not believe anything except for what we tell you to believe.

It definitely sounds like you were in a cult. It seems to me, though, that although you left it, you're still employing the same reasoning.

[CrabR]

It definitely sounds like you were in a cult. It seems to me, though, that although you left it, you're still employing the same reasoning.

the cult was called the Baptist. And they still say the same thing

PS
there is no reason in religion. once you apply reason you become a agnostic or atheist

[techboy]

You can put this in the proper context for us.

I already did, actually. Go back a read about the various incarnations of God, which Jews of the day taught and believed. Nobody was killed by the Word or Wisdom either.

The simple answer is that no human can see God in his full glory without dying. Jesus took on human form, "emptied himself", and so people at the time did not see him in his full glory. See Philippians 2 (NET):


2:5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, 9

2:6 10 who though he existed in the form of God 11

did not regard equality with God

as something to be grasped,

2:7 but emptied himself

by taking on the form of a slave, 12

by looking like other men, 13

and by sharing in human nature. 14

2:8 He humbled himself,

by becoming obedient to the point of death

– even death on a cross!

2:9 As a result God exalted him

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

2:10 so that at the name of Jesus

every knee will bow

– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –

2:11 and every tongue confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father.

There are plenty of examples in the Old Testament, as well, including the passage of Exodus you cherry-picked from, where Moses does see God, just not His face in His full glory.



there is no reason in religion. once you apply reason you become a agnostic or atheist

This quote is revealing, though not in the way you probably think.

[DRSmith]

I wasn't saying categorically that he thought that. However, being Satan, of course he thought he could sway even Jesus. You think if Satan thought he was perfect he wouldn't even try. Satan is a vain beast and would think he could do just that.





Satan knew he could make a perfect human choose to seek their own selfish desires as he had with Adam and Eve.

Look at the tests and rewards he placed before Jesus, prove you are the son of God. Then offer his all the kingdoms of the world for something simple vs the kingship that would be given him once he was obedient until death an easy way out.

Are you trying to say God can be tempted?

[DRSmith]

Paul also in Collosians 1 says
"13 - Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 - In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 - Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 - And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
"



The image of the invisible God and the firstborn

So he is not the God but rather the image just as we say sons are the spitting image of the father.

Firstborn agree denotes a starting point and one who is brought forth from another.

[DRSmith]

IF Jesus was God then everyone would have died who looked at him

Exodus 33:20
he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.

1 Timothy 6:16
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us

That is why they invented the 3 gods rolled into a trinity of 1

Actually the model of three gods was present in many nation that surrounded the Jews the Egyptian had their's in threes with a god man.

Hinduism one of the oldest religions also has god in three's

[techboy]

Firstborn agree denotes a starting point and one who is brought forth from another.

Not in Jewish thought, where firstborn is attributed to Wisdom, an incarnation and attribute of God.

Kind of like creating the Universe and everything in it, just as it says in the passage.

[DRSmith]

Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Doesn't sound so eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, or life for life, to me. God's Law was given to us via the 10 Commandments. Which, doesn't say anything of the like.

All Genesis promises that the Earth would not be flooded again

As for eye for eye which is not in the 10 commandments butis in the 613 laws of which the ten commandments were a part of

Exodus 21:
23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

[DRSmith]

Not in Jewish thought, where firstborn is attributed to Wisdom, an incarnation and attribute of God.

Kind of like creating the Universe and everything in it, just as it says in the passage.
If you are talking about wisdom as in Proverbs 8:22 Jesus is wisdom personified whom many of the early church fathers agreed was about Jesus and would be keeping in harmony with the rest of the bible which describes Jesus as the beginning of creation by God. Firstborn of creation and only begotten son.

[DRSmith]

Just a quick note here:

Techboy's posting of John 1 is right on target, imho. It is here that we encounter the idea that Christ is the embodiment of Logos, and this concept is why Christianity is so radically different from other religions. This is the formula for how and why Christianity "works".

I'm at work, so I can't go into this further, but in my opinion, techboy has been crushing this particular argument out of the ballpark. I'm happy to step back and continue watching the homerun derby.

Who is the God with whom the word and is with and if he is the God of the bible why is the word not called the God?

Koine (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Koine) Greek (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Greek_language)Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)

Literal English in beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and a god was the word (or "saying").[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1%3A1

















Koine (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Koine) Greek (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Greek_language)Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Greek transliterationen arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.Sahidic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible#Sahidic) Coptic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_language#Sahidic)ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄCoptic transliterationHn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Latin (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Latin_(language)) Vulgate (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Vulgate)In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.Literal Englishin beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and a god was the word (or "saying").[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)
Koine (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Koine) Greek (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Greek_language)Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Greek transliterationen arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.Sahidic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible#Sahidic) Coptic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_language#Sahidic)ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄCoptic transliterationHn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Latin (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Latin_(language)) Vulgate (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Vulgate)In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.Literal Englishin beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and a god was the word (or "saying").[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)
Koine (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Koine) Greek (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Greek_language)Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Greek transliterationen arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.Sahidic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible#Sahidic) Coptic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_language#Sahidic)ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄCoptic transliterationHn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Latin (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Latin_(language)) Vulgate (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Vulgate)In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.Literal Englishin beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and a god was the word (or "saying").[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Koine (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Koine) Greek (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Greek_language)Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Greek transliterationen arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.Sahidic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible#Sahidic) Coptic (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Coptic_language#Sahidic)ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄCoptic transliterationHn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)Latin (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Latin_(language)) Vulgate (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Vulgate)In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.Literal Englishin beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and a god was the word (or "saying").[2] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-CT-1)

[DRSmith]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.



Actually Isaiah does not say the virgin shall give birth but rather the maiden

The words are different and maiden covers both

But another couple of questions spring from Isaiah first being why in Isaiah 9 is his rulership referred to as princely since this a title of sons who rule.

Isaiah 61 :1 is read aloud by Jesus in the synagouge

The spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah


The Jews had one God and clearly here Jesus is saying he is not that God

[Sandman69]

Satan knew he could make a perfect human choose to seek their own selfish desires as he had with Adam and Eve.

Look at the tests and rewards he placed before Jesus, prove you are the son of God. Then offer his all the kingdoms of the world for something simple vs the kingship that would be given him once he was obedient until death an easy way out.

Are you trying to say God can be tempted?

No you are the one saying that. I am saying Satan obviously tried, but failed miserably.

Satan as always thought he was above all, when actually he was not.

[techboy]

Who is the God with whom the word and is with and if he is the God of the bible why is the word not called the God?

In Greek, you're wondering why Jesus is not called Θεός. You're wrong. He is. Consider Jesus as Θεός (God): A Textual Examination (http://bible.org/article/jesus-%CE%B8%CE%B5%E1%BD%B9%CF%82-scriptural-fact-or-scribal-fantasy), which is rather detailed. From the conclusion:


No one contests that the NT usually reserves the title θεός for God the Father. Yet this usage, though dominant, is not exclusive.146 The textual proof of the designation θεός as applied to Jesus in the NT merely confirms what other grounds have already established. In fact, the title θεός only makes explicit what is implied in other Christological titles such as κύριος and υἱὸς θεοῦ. Harris adds:

Even if the early Church had never applied the title θεός to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith; the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment; the addressee in petitionary prayer; the possessor of all divine attributes; the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the OT; and the co-author of divine blessing. Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός but on the general testimony of the NT corroborated at the bar of personal experience.147

The question now before us is not whether the NT explicitly ascribes the title θεός to Jesus, but how many times he is thus identified and by whom.148 Therefore, with at least one text that undoubtedly calls Jesus θεός in every respect (John 20.28), I will conclude by answering my initial question: When did this boldness to call Jesus θεός begin? It began in the first century. It was not a creation of Constantine in the fourth century. It was not a doctrinal innovation to combat Arianism in the third century. Nor was it a sub-apostolic distortion of the apostolic kerygma in the second century. Rather, the church’s confession of Christ as θεός began in the first century with the apostles themselves and/or their closest followers and therefore most likely from Jesus himself.

I bolded the most relevant part, though. . It seems like we do this every six months or so, and it always comes down to highly technical discussions of textual variants (which experts almost universally disagree with you on, by the way), but the larger picture is irrefutable.

Jesus forgives sins. Jesus accepts worship. Jesus is prayed to. Jesus is described as creating the Universe and everything in it. Jesus is called by the same Greek term used for YHWH in the Septuagint. Jesus changes the Law. Jesus is assigned titles and concepts (such as Word and Wisdom) that were used in Judaism to talk about God.

Jesus is called God explicitly. Jesus takes actions that only God can take, and accepts prerogatives that belong only to God.

The picture is clear, and I defy anyone to sit down and read John (or better yet, the entire New Testament) and come away with a picture other than "Jesus is God".

I've written all I'm going to on the issue (this time, at least).

P.S. Please learn to use the multi-quote.

[DRSmith]

No you are the one saying that. I am saying Satan obviously tried, but failed miserably.

Satan as always thought he was above all, when actually he was not.

Satan goes after God's servants never God himself, with Job it is Job he goes after not God.

Satan knows the only way to get at God is though His servant he has not got anything to offer God and does not have the power to defeat Him.

[DRSmith]

In Greek, you're wondering why Jesus is not called Θεός. Consider Jesus as Θεός (God): A Textual Examination (http://bible.org/article/jesus-%CE%B8%CE%B5%E1%BD%B9%CF%82-scriptural-fact-or-scribal-fantasy), which is rather detailed. From the conclusion:



I bolded the most relevant part. It seems like we do this every six months or so, and it always comes down to highly technical discussions of textual variants (which experts almost universally disagree with you on, by the way), but the larger picture is irrefutable.

Jesus forgives sins. Jesus accepts worship. Jesus is prayed to. Jesus is described as creating the Universe and everything in it. Jesus is called by the same Greek term used for YHWH in the Septuagint. Jesus changes the Law. Jesus is assigned titles and concepts (such as Word and Wisdom) that were used in Judaism to talk about God.

Jesus is called God explicitly. Jesus takes actions that only God can take, and accepts prerogatives that belong only to God.

The picture is clear, and I defy anyone to sit down and read John and come away with a picture other than "Jesus is God".

I've written all I'm going to on the issue.

P.S. Please learn to use the multi-quote.

Jesus forgives sin because he had the authority to do so Matthew 9:
. 8 At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.

There is no instance where Jesus is worshipped the greek word used is also used for bowing down as is down to a king and the word we see used in the septuigint to show what Jews did to their kings.

Moses is called Elohim in the OT as are the judges.

Either Jesus is the Christ or he is God, is he the anointed one of God or is he God?

Is he the prophet like Moses whom was prophesied about whom God would raise up or is he God?

[Sandman69]

The image of the invisible God and the firstborn

So he is not the God but rather the image just as we say sons are the spitting image of the father.

Firstborn agree denotes a starting point and one who is brought forth from another.

You ignore
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


Actually Isaiah does not say the virgin shall give birth but rather the maiden

The words are different and maiden covers both


What version are you referencing? The KJV, NASB, NIV, among others all say Virgin. You are just playing semantics. The real point of the two verses I mentioned says the VIRGIN will birth Immanuel. An OT verse and a NT verse. Immanuel meaning God with us.



But another couple of questions spring from Isaiah first being why in Isaiah 9 is his rulership referred to as princely since this a title of sons who rule.

Isaiah 61 :1 is read aloud by Jesus in the synagouge

The spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah


The Jews had one God and clearly here Jesus is saying he is not that God

However, if you read just a touch further
Isaiah 61:8 Jesus says
"For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. "

There are plenty of verses where Jesus calls himself the Son, and talks of His Father. However, I really think as Techboy has mentioned, some are using modern definitions to fill in the blanks for you.

The Spirit of God, gave birth to the Flesh of God, who died on the Cross for our sins. So the Flesh is perhaps the Son of the Spirit, if you look at it in that manner, however, Lord is still Lord. Even in the Spirit and in the Flesh.

[techboy]

What version are you referencing? The KJV, NASB, NIV, among others all say Virgin. You are just playing semantics.

Not exactly. The NETBible includes this note for Isaiah 7 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=7#v26):


26 tn Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

[DRSmith]

You ignore
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:





Much like when Paul uses all in Corithians all does not mean everything.

Not all men with be saved and not all things are submitted under him.

[DRSmith]

What version are you referencing? The KJV, NASB, NIV, among others all say Virgin. You are just playing semantics. The real point of the two verses I mentioned says the VIRGIN will birth Immanuel. An OT verse and a NT verse. Immanuel meaning God with us.





bethu·lah′ is virgin

ʽal·mah′ is maiden which is the word you find in Isaiah

The term God is with us or with is used in the OT and does not mean God is literally with them.

[DRSmith]

However, if you read just a touch further
Isaiah 61:8 Jesus says
"For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. "

There are plenty of verses where Jesus calls himself the Son, and talks of His Father. However, I really think as Techboy has mentioned, some are using modern definitions to fill in the blanks for you.

The Spirit of God, gave birth to the Flesh of God, who died on the Cross for our sins. So the Flesh is perhaps the Son of the Spirit, if you look at it in that manner, however, Lord is still Lord. Even in the Spirit and in the Flesh.

Jesus is not speaking in Isaiah 61 he just reads 61

The account in Luke just as the words are witten in Isaiah

16 And he came to Naz′a·reth, where he had been reared; and, according to his custom on the sabbath day, he entered into the synagogue, and he stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed upon him. 21 Then he started to say to them: “Today this scripture that YOU just heard is fulfilled.”
He does not read verse 8

[Sandman69]

Not exactly. The NETBible includes this note for Isaiah 7 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=7#v26):

Fair enough. However, I wasn't really emphasizing the use of Virgin, or Maiden. I was emphasizing that both passages mentioned his name would be "of God"


BTW, thanks A LOT for all the great references you have added. I will definitely be looking at them, as I become reacquainted with the Lord. I read the Bible as a younger man, and have been reborn if you will and have become more of a man of Christ than I ever was.

[Sandman69]

You said

Much like when Paul uses all in Corithians all does not mean everything.

Not all men with be saved and not all things are submitted under him.

How does he not mean all as in everything?


Thanks for correcting me about what I said Jesus spoke of Isaiah. I appreciate it. I am still learning.

However, Jesus did say :
John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."

John 12:44-46 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

John 13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."


You obviously are more schooled on the words of the Bible and the different translations.
However, there is nothing you can say that will convince me that Jesus is not the flesh of God, and God is not spirit of Jesus. I think there is plenty to back that up.

[Riggo-toni]

Wow, this thread has been hijacked by the ghosts of Arius and Athanasius. Maybe now we can skip on over to the monophysitic heresy, or Nestorianism...

[Sandman69]

Wow, this thread has been hijacked by the ghosts of Arius and Athanasius. Maybe now we can skip on over to the monophysitic heresy, or Nestorianism...

What? Isn't discussing that Jesus is God the same as the Ages of the Old Testament Patriarchs? :evilg:

[techboy]

Fair enough. However, I wasn't really emphasizing the use of Virgin, or Maiden. I was emphasizing that both passages mentioned his name would be "of God"

I get it. It's just important to be accurate, especially if you're going to debate these things in a public forum where others are watching.



BTW, thanks A LOT for all the great references you have added.


You're welcome.

[DRSmith]

You said


How does he not mean all as in everything?




Paul often uses the word all without it meaning everything I can give you two other instances

1 Timothy 2:who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

Now we know not all men are saved, as Jesus there were two paths and many would choose the broad path leading to destruction so all does not mean everyone.

Another example would be 1 Corinthians Paul uses the expression all things more than a dozen times for instance he says all things are lawful to him. But clearly even for a Christian murder would not be lawful.

[Sandman69]

Paul often uses the word all without it meaning everything I can give you two other instances

1 Timothy 2:who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

Now we know not all men are saved, as Jesus there were two paths and many would choose the broad path leading to destruction so all does not mean everyone.

Yes we know all men are not and will not be saved, however, don't you think Paul wants all men to be saved?

I will have to re-read Corinthians to understand what you are saying.

[DRSmith]

John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."



One of the most interesting things I with this passage is that people miss is verse 54

54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God;

So he has just told them that his Father is their God and the Jews only had one God. Secondly this whole I am thing where people point back to Exodus 3:14 relies on that being mistranslated. In verse 12 the same wording is used and it is I will be or I shall be which is the correct way to translate ehyeh asher ehyeh

The problem comes when tries to translate the Hebrew after it comes from greek where emi has many tenses. hence why some translate John 8:58 as I have been or existed or was.

[DRSmith]

Yes we know all men are not and will not be saved, however, don't you think Paul wants all men to be saved?

I will have to re-read Corinthians to understand what you are saying.

Paul is speaking regarding God's will. So what most universalists take away from this is that it is God's will that all be saved so they will be, but we know from Jesus own words they will not so the all is not meant to mean everything.

Paul himself at one point has to clarify this in his letter

1 cor. 15:
. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

[DRSmith]

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."



Jesus also prayed his followers would be one as he and his Father were one, and we know the Christian congregation was more than one person. It was many people united in purpose.

[DRSmith]

John 12:44-46 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

John 13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."


You obviously are more schooled on the words of the Bible and the different translations.
However, there is nothing you can say that will convince me that Jesus is not the flesh of God, and God is not spirit of Jesus. I think there is plenty to back that up.

Going back to time of Moses on demostrated their faith in God by their willingness to listen to one whom He sent. Jesus the prophet like Moses whom Moses said God would raise up.

Jesus is the head of the congregation so the title lord is fitting just as Sarah called Abraham her lord. This denotes headship.

As Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11:
3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

[techboy]

Now we know not all men are saved, as Jesus there were two paths and many would choose the broad path leading to destruction so all does not mean everyone.

Sorry, doesn't work. God can want all men to be saved, yet not all men will be if there is free will.

Try again.



So he has just told them that his Father is their God and the Jews only had one God.

His Father is their God. So is he. Jewish thought, as I have noted, is more than able to accomodate incarnations like Spirit, Wisdom, Word, and so on, and still remain monotheistic.




Secondly this whole I am thing where people point back to Exodus 3:14 relies on that being mistranslated.

Wrong again, as is clear from the context (NETBible):


8:57 Then the Judeans 154 replied, 155 “You are not yet fifty years old! 156 Have 157 you seen Abraham?” 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, 158 before Abraham came into existence, 159 I am!” 160 8:59 Then they picked up 161 stones to throw at him, 162 but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. 163

The Jewish leaders knew exactly what he was claiming, and tried to stone him for blasphemy (again). The context makes it very clear that he was invoking the divine I AM from Exodus (NET)


3:13 Moses said 43 to God, “If 44 I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ 45 – what should I say 46 to them?”

3:14 God said to Moses, “I am that I am.” 47 And he said, “You must say this 48 to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Further, you claim about mistranslation in Exodus 3:14 is vastly overstated. From the NETBible Notes (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Exo&chapter=3#v47):


47 tn The verb form used here is אֶהְיֶה (’ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb הָיָה (haya, “to be”). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I am.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I am” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I am”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I am” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation of the OT used a participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance (e.g., John 8:58). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Parke-Taylor, Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible. See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101-18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227-39; J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193-201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980): 208-12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’” JETS 15 (1972): 144-52.

It is especially interesting to note that the Septuagint, composed by Jewish scholars hundreds of years before Jesus, uses eimi (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1510), which is first person singular present. "I AM".

But, here's the nail in the coffin for your argument. Even if it was true that Exodus 3:14 is mistranslated, it doesn't matter. "I AM" is the traditional reading, and was at Jesus' time, especially in the Septuagint which the New Testament writers seem to have used heavily (see previous discussion about virgin vs. young woman), and that is the clear reference here, mistranslation or not.

The Jewish leaders certainly got the point.