Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course you are blind to the fact that the Lord Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of God."
sin/sins is not the issue today!
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
Of course you are blind to the fact that the Lord Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of God."
Shasta
Well-known member
The term Son of Man was not meant to point out Jesus' humanity. This is a common misunderstanding. The term "Son of Man" spoken by Jesus in his native Aramaic was bar'enash which was the same Aramaic term used in Daniel 7:13-14
"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
The passage says "he came to the Ancient of Days" meaning he dared to approach the very throne of God, unthinkable in the culture of that day. The Ark of the Covenant was only a symbol of God's throne and no Jew would approach that who was not cleaned ritually by washing and sprinkling. Even then there was danger. In order to understand the Bible we have to get in their minds. We cannot superimpose our 21st century Western cultural context on them.
Jesus is said to be many things. There are in him qualities that both attract and repel people so much that people would like to divide him in two and make several Christs. One is a kind humanitarian, a nice guy. The other is a rampant egomaniac with delusions of grandeur. All I can say is if Jesus was not divine or a megalomaniac he probably one of the worst communicators in history.. All he needed to do to avoid crucifixion was to explain that he did not REALLY mean he was God, but he only meant that he was a son of God like all men are sons of Adam (who was a "son of God")However, when questioned by the Sanhedrin he blew it by answering this way:
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)
Here he connects Himself to Daniel's prophecy and thereby makes a claim to deity at least this is how it was understood within the language and context of that culture. To call oneself a "son of God" will not raise many eyebrows today but when Jesus said it the Jews understood his meaning and tried to kill Him (John 5:18). On several other occasions they also tried to kill him for similar claims to deity (John 8:59, John 10:31) After his answer to the Sanhedrin they finally succeeded.
Jesus followers later understood the connection between Jesus' statements and Daniel's prophecy. Notice the similarity between these two passages:
(Daniel 2:33-35 and Revelation 11:15)
Zeke
Well-known member
I also enjoy a good religious indoctrinated response myself, you never lack in that department GM.
Then show me the evidence. And then let's talk about "blindness."
And do not take refuge in the ahistorical and theologically dense Gospel of John.
Besides a reference to himself as a prophet and his description of himself as "the Son of Man" (which means simply a "human being") Jesus did not claim divinity. For a Jew such as himself whose stated message was to "the House of Israel" such a thing would have been unthinkable.
"Christ" refers to an anointed military leader, not a divine ruler.
And personally, I don't see the speech from the great Hebrew prophets such as Daniel refer to a Jesus of Nazareth at all. They were speaking to folks of their own time and they are taken out of context by believers like yourself to "prove" the prophets could predict the future.
Daniel was putting himself squarely on the side of hope. He was not some clairvoyant.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Jews who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith:
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).
And if "works" are needed for salvation then their salvation cannot be described as being of "grace":
"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).
A7, you really should refer to yourself as an "Other." You seem
to be cynical about certain parts of the written word of God? Why
not consider changing your reference from Christian to "Other?"
to be cynical about certain parts of the written word of God? Why
not consider changing your reference from Christian to "Other?"
I see the New Testament as TRUE. I have never claimed anything else.
It's just that I separate faith statements from what is factually correct. But this does not mean I ignore or don't take the tradition of Christian theology seriously. But in the end I have to live with myself. I refuse to be told to leave my brain and common sense outside the door of the church.
I remember the phrase uttered by a Native American storyteller:
"What I have to tell you is true. And some of it really happened."
Do you think there was a Jericho Police Station that had records of a Jew found beaten on the road? How about a woman who actually secreted some leaven in an oven full of bread dough?
Or were these profound parables that pointed to a truth beyond our modern notions of what is believable?
There was NO Grace back then. There was the Law alone. If Grace
was established back then, there would be no need for a Messiah,
a Savior or the Law. You're reaching. Is that all you got?
Go for "Other."
The Gospel of Grace didn't come along until Paul. Paul was sent to the Gentiles
to preach that Gospel. The Israelite's were preached the "Kingdom Message."
to preach that Gospel. The Israelite's were preached the "Kingdom Message."
The Jesus you are referring to by using ancient theological and dogmatic phrases like "Messiah," or "Savior of the Law" (Is that last one "adding TO" the text?) saved many by simply extending the law that was there and adding to it. He did not reject the Hebrew scriptures, but Christians have felt confident placing those statements into his mouth after his death. They were trying to reject the Jews who did not accept Jesus as Messiah.
The gospel of Grace did not come from Paul, but from Augustine's and Luther's theology of Paul.
Paul was preaching to the Gentiles in Romans.
You need to study history? Augustine and Luther came much,
much later. Hundreds of years to be exact.
Augustine and Luther weren't around when Paul walked the earth.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
"do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (Jn.10:36).
When the Lord Jesus said that He is the Son of God they charged Him with blasphemy because of that. And here is what they believed He meant when He said that He is the Son of God:
"The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (Jn.10:33).
Christ gave the message to Paul, not to Augustine and Luther.
You two guys are, something else?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If you believe that there was no grace for those living under the law then how do you explain this verse which says otherwise?:
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).
You just pick and choose which verses you will believe and which ones you will deny.
Here Peter, who lived under the law, says that his salvation was by grace just as the Gentiles are saved:
"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11).
Of course you will never believe that because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.