Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how do you come to the conclusion that Jesus was killed because of blasphemy? They could not find two witnesses to confirm he claimed he was GOD because he NEVER claimed to be God.
Just because Pilate found no fault in Him doesn;t mean the chrge from the Jewish standpoint didn't stand ground. Pilate appeased the Jews by releasing Barrabas, but in Jewish/Coveantal point of view, the charge still stood. That is the focus, not Rome's but the Jewish.
In Jesus' trial He makes a clear declaration of who He is. The Jews argued before Pilate in John 19:7, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." Matthew 26 records that at Jesus' trial, the high priest tells Jesus, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."Jesus replies, "You have said it yourself, . . . But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." This would have been a wonderful opportunity for Jesus to save himself by clearing up any misconceptions concerning His relationship with the Father. Instead, He places himself in a position of equality and of unique power and authority. Again, the Jews understand what Jesus is saying. The high priest proclaims, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy." He calls for a vote of the council, and they demand His death (Matt. 26:65-66).
Just because Pilate found no fault in Him doesn;t mean the chrge from the Jewish standpoint didn't stand ground. Pilate appeased the Jews by releasing Barrabas, but in Jewish/Coveantal point of view, the charge still stood. That is the focus, not Rome's but the Jewish.
Just a side note: I find it interesting that it was Jesus against Jesus Bar abba (which is Jesus son of the father) Very interesting...
Quote:
In Jesus' trial He makes a clear declaration of who He is.
Yep, the Son of God, The Christ, King...Teacher... anything else?
Quote:
The Jews argued before Pilate in John 19:7, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
But they didn't deal with it themselves.. why? The Romans allowed the Jews to operate their own Judicial system.. The reason they needed the Romans is because they couldn't get two witnesses that they needed to confirm this blasphemy.
Quote:
Matthew 26 records that at Jesus' trial, the high priest tells Jesus, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."Jesus replies, "You have said it yourself, . . . But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Notice he STILL DIDN'T say he was God.. Son of GOD and CHRIST and SON of MAN....(notice also that the "Mighty One" is God not Jesus)... The high priests did not like this at all.. but it apparently didn't bother the Romans...
Quote:
This would have been a wonderful opportunity for Jesus to save himself by clearing up any misconceptions concerning His relationship with the Father. Instead, He places himself in a position of equality and of unique power and authority. Again, the Jews understand what Jesus is saying.
Yes they did. They understood that Jesus was the Messiah and Jesus was calling them to repentance. Coming into the light from the darkness can be tough... This was not that unusual in light of their history (the OT). THE Romans were not blind.. the JEWISH leaders were.. its in just about every book in the NT we see that the JEWISH leaders had it wrong.. NOW you are saying THEY WERE RIGHT? That Jesus was blaspheming? Did he agree with them by turning the other cheek? Did he get mad and accuse them back?
He must have known this would happen.. after all he tells the disciples it would... right? So by Jesus' total obedience to God you are saying that the Sanhedrin WAS right??? Jesus can't be Jesus if he blasphemed.. right?
AND what is the blasphemy? CLAIMING TO BE GOD!!! So you claiming he is God means they could also accuse you of blasphemy... if you are right that is.. and according to Jewish Law it is BLASPHEMY to claim you are God...
Spin Spin Spin Kat...keep at it, because it won't get you anywhere. You are the one seeking a revelation from man, or is it that you are just rebelling for the sake of rebellion? IMO, from what I have seen, you really don't earnestly want to know whether He is or not, you just want to argue against it. I may be wrong, but all the evidence that has been presented to you, but you still argue against it shows your true intent....then again, I may be wrong. If you truly, in your heart, sought this, you would be open minded, read everyone's posts, and take them in, but the deflection and spinning I see here speaks volumes against that presumption. But then again, I may be wrong.
The Flesh was begotten of the Father, that is Jesus, which the Flesh was the Word, and the Word was God. Take it or leave it, your choice, but your soul is in jeopardy over it.
My hands are clean on this one. My debate with you is over, for now. It is up to Christ now.
I will pray for your deliverance.
Spin Spin Spin Kat...keep at it, because it won't get you anywhere. You are the one seeking a revelation from man, or is it that you are just rebelling for the sake of rebellion? IMO, from what I have seen, you really don't earnestly want to know whether He is or not, you just want to argue against it. I may be wrong, but all the evidence that has been presented to you, but you still argue against it shows your true intent....then again, I may be wrong. If you truly, in your heart, sought this, you would be open minded, read everyone's posts, and take them in, but the deflection and spinning I see here speaks volumes against that presumption. But then again, I may be wrong.
The Flesh was begotten of the Father, that is Jesus, which the Flesh was the Word, and the Word was God. Take it or leave it, your choice, but your soul is in jeopardy over it.
My hands are clean on this one. My debate with you is over, for now. It is up to Christ now.
I will pray for your deliverance.
YIKES... notice you didn't respond but attack me personally...
I don't spin anything.. I read the bible and that is what the bible states. If you want to challenge the issue then challenge the issue. This is the appropriate venue, isn't it? But you just want to point fingers and then say you can't debate anymore.
Someone posted that Jesus was killed because he blasphemed.. I said no, he didn't and I gave proof. You agreed that Jesus was killed because he blasphemed and again I disagreed.
Counter or throw in the towel... either way... a debate is when one person makes a statement with proofs and the other responds with their proofs.
Apparently you don't appreciate the proof I provided about the crucifixion of Christ then lets agree to disagree, BUT don't spout off about my character when it is plain to see that you are unable or unwilling to debate.
This has nothing to do with my character.. this has to discussion of the deity of Christ...right?
I do not believe that Jesus is God; and this is how I understand Hebrews 1: 5-8 ....
(Hebrews 1:5-8) For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? 6*But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.” 7*Also, with reference to the angels he says: “And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire.” 8*But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.'"
Jehovah God demonstrated supreme confidence in his Son in charging him with the mission of going to earth and serving as the promised Messiah. The Bible record, however, does not state at what point Jehovah designated or informed the specific individual chosen to fill this role, whether at the time of the rebellion in Eden or at some later time. The requirements, particularly that of the ransom sacrifice, ruled out the use of any imperfect human, but not of a perfect spirit son. Out of all his millions of spirit sons, Jehovah selected one to take on the assignment: his Firstborn, the Word.—Compare Heb 1:5,*6.
By his entire life course of integrity to God, including his sacrifice, Jesus Christ accomplished the “one act of justification” that proved him qualified to serve as God’s anointed King-Priest in heaven. (Romans 5:17,*18) By his resurrection from the dead to life as a heavenly Son of God, he was “declared righteous in spirit.” (1Ti 3:16) Heavenly creatures proclaimed him “worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing,” as one who was both lionlike in behalf of justice and judgment and also lamblike in giving himself as a sacrifice for the saving of others. (Rev 5:5-13) He had accomplished his primary purpose of sanctifying his Father’s name. (Mt 6:9; 22:36-38) This he did, not just by using that name, but by revealing the Person it represents, displaying his Father’s splendid qualities—his love, wisdom, justice, and power—enabling persons to know or experience what God’s name stands for. (Mt 11:27; John 1:14,*18; 17:6-12)
And above all, he did it by upholding Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, showing that his own Kingdom government would be based solidly on that Supreme Source of authority. Therefore it could be said of him: “God is your throne forever.”—Heb 1:8.
YIKES... notice you didn't respond but attack me personally...
I don't spin anything.. I read the bible and that is what the bible states. If you want to challenge the issue then challenge the issue. This is the appropriate venue, isn't it? But you just want to point fingers and then say you can't debate anymore.
Someone posted that Jesus was killed because he blasphemed.. I said no, he didn't and I gave proof. You agreed that Jesus was killed because he blasphemed and again I disagreed.
Counter or throw in the towel... either way... a debate is when one person makes a statement with proofs and the other responds with their proofs.
Apparently you don't appreciate the proof I provided about the crucifixion of Christ then lets agree to disagree, BUT don't spout off about my character when it is plain to see that you are unable or unwilling to debate.
This has nothing to do with my character.. this has to discussion of the deity of Christ...right?
Who was the ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER?
Answer the question, because I have asked you this over three times now and you have never attempted to address it, but instead you spun.
Answer the question, because I have asked you this over three times now and you have never attempted to address it, but instead you spun.
LOL I just love it when you don't respond to my posts (but attack me personally) and then DEMAND an answer to a question I went into depth to explain to you in not only this thread but others as well.
I have never denied these things:
Jesus is the only begotten of the father.
The word of God is God.
Jesus represented the word.
Jesus represented God.
Jesus spread the word of God and caused it to grow/multiply.
So if you are trying to say that because the flesh in John 1:14 is shown to be referring to Jesus then he must be God.. I hardly think you can do that and here is why:
Verses 1-3 of John 1 introduces the reader to the word of God and tells us that God is his word. IOW you can count it as God speaking when his word is spoken or written through men.
Then in verse 14 you see that the word "became" flesh... (and actually I think the meaning would be preserved better if it was translated as the flesh adopted the word.. but that is another debate altogether) and the flesh is (in this case) the only begotten of the father.
Now you are correct in stating that the flesh and Jesus both represent the only begotten of the father... BUT how can you then GO BACK to verses 1-3 and replace logos with CHRIST?
See? You are saying:
The word is God.
The word became flesh.
The flesh is Jesus.
Therefore Jesus is God.
Do you see sound logic in that? The fact is that you are trying to make this say that God is the flesh when it states that the MESSAGE of God (which is God's very nature) is what went into or became flesh... and specifically Jesus' flesh though not excluding others that are born of God... But you say that the word actually turned into/became an embryo of flesh so that Jesus could be born?
Nowhere does it say that the flesh = God.. does it?
So you are making a connection that is not logical and is not warranted and is not in keeping with the text... do you see now? You have built so many strawmen about what I believe that you can't see what you are doing.. at least that is my explanation for what you are doing here.
So to reiterate... you must establish that the word becoming flesh means that the word actually transformed into a zygote or something so it could be born as Jesus...
Again.. the word of God became a book too.. we call it the bible. So just remember that when you trip over your bible or let it fall off the table you are injuring God.
Now explain to me why, if what you say is true, that we can't replace all "word of God" or "logos" in the bible with "CHRIST"... or "flesh" for that matter.. we can't because it doesn't mean a person anywhere else anymore than it means a person in John 1:1-3.
Does this make sense to you?
In the beginning was the Christ, and the Christ was with God, and the Christ was God.....
Silly considering John's whole book speaks about the MESSAGE of Christ (word of God) and not about his flesh.
what about:
[John] himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
So Christ is the light to... was he truly illuminated so that when he walked during the night he was like a lamp? or is this spiritually speaking?
Please sciotamicks.. try to temper what you've been taught with common sense. If we were reading ANY other book you would readily agree with me... but since you are so indoctrinated with the trinity that is all you can see.
Are you saying also that according to John 6:35, Jesus and the word of God are edible?
Jeremiah 2:13 "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water.
Doesn't this verse remind you of what Jesus is saying? That the living water is what he would give to anyone who asks? The living water comes from whom?
But is this living water tangible? in the same manner is the word tangible? When God speaks does it have mass? When God said "this is my son" did he lie? Was he really saying that this is me and I am so pleased in myself but wanted to fool everyone? But yet if we take what you are saying.. that the word is Jesus then isn't God speaking words in witness to the authority he gave to Jesus that Jesus was spoken just then? So we have God speaking himself into existence in the form of a human SON in whom he is well pleased so gives full measure of the spirit of God and full authority with the WORD of God.
Coincidentally , Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record that God said " this is my son" and the events that took place similarly but John does not.. does he? but we see that this took place when John the baptist baptized Jesus.... and in John 1 we see that it is the same John the baptist story...
Perhaps this is JOHN'S version of the same story Matthew, Mark, and Luke record but as we know JOHN is given to be more theological and less historical... and this is truly in keeping with the rest of his book, and because he also testifies in John 1 that Jesus was filled with the spirit of God....
Last edited by katjonjj; 03-02-2010 at 12:27 PM..
Reason: spelling n grammar
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record that God said " this is my son" and the events that took place similarly but John does not.. does he? but we see that this took place when John the baptist baptized Jesus.... and in John 1 we see that it is the same John the baptist story... 
