There are many scriptures which point to the fact that Jesus is God. My favorite is his reply to Philip when asked to show the Father. He basically replies "After all this time, you don't know ME Philip?":
(John 14:8-9) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known ME, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Jesus was fully man and fully God. My name is nick. I am a son, a brother, and a father. But i am one person. There is only one God and his name is Jesus.
In light of your statement about Jesus not correcting Thomas's declaration in John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God!"), I'd be interested in your take on a comparison between John 20:28 (where Jesus is not depicted correcting the speaker') and Mark 10:18 and its parallel in Luke 18:19 (where Jesus *is* depicted correcting the speaker). As for the authority to forgive sins, I'd be interested in your take on Matthew 9:6-8, which has Jesus talking about his authority to forgive sins, which is...
(con't) ...followed by the author depicting the crowd "prais[ing] God for giving such authority to people." Among the interesting things about this passage is that Jesus speaks of "the Son of Man" having authority to forgive sins "here on earth." Some have argued that "Son of Man" as it is used in the gospels is merely a reference to an Aramaic term basically meaning "one of us" (i.e., humans). That would seem to comport with the reaction of the crowd as Matthew portrays it.
Although Your Scripture References point out 'The Obvious' which Christians refuse to see it's only fair to also add that Jesus said in John 20:29 that,"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
And... Considering Your Stance as An Atheist employs You to NOT BELIEVE then please know that Your Brilliance is Your Own Downfall like The Christian Religion has become...
If You truly believed Jesus, You wouldn't be (A)THEIST!
@Christianizers I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here, Christianizers. In any case, I'm interested in Joel's thoughts on the things I asked about. This is his channel, after all. If you have something you'd like to say to me, don't clog up his page doing it. Feel free to send me a PM.
Same Old Professor playing light on someone else cause They don't match up to Your Scholarship, huh?
Let me say it straight for You Professor, You Atheists have no play 'in the game' of religion cause all of Atheism is nothing more than 'a disposal' of anger against anyone that believes differently than Your Given Logic.
Joey don't waste Your Time with The Finicky Professor, he only wishes You The Loss Of Any Hope IN YAH or IN YAH' SON Yeshua' Ben YaHVeH.
@ProfMTH Mark 10:18 is a totally different situation. The Rich Young Ruler calls Jesus his God as Thomas does in John 20:28 Jesus asks him why he calls Him good. He points out to the man that no one is good but God. He does not deny being God. Neither does He confirm it. So this passage, as well as its parallel Luke 18:19 is irrelevant. The Rich Young Ruler was not worshiping Jesus.
As for the passage in Matthew 9: 6-8 the people are not marveling because Jesus was forgiving sins but healing.
#2 TYPO ALERT: should read "the Rich Young Ruler does NOT call Jesus his God as Thomas does in John 20:28" sorry for any confusion. God bless you Joel you did a great job here.
@Blogrich55 "As for the passage in Matthew 9: 6-8 the people are not marveling because Jesus was forgiving sins but healing."
That doesn't really make sense when one looks at the passage in context. The public dispute is about Jesus telling the man that his sins were forgiven. The story has Jesus making a point of saying to those who oppose him that he said that so they would know he had the authority to forgive sins on earth. (Of course, at that time people believed illness to be a...
(con't) @Blogrich55 ...punishment from their god for wrongdoing. We see this even in the gospels.) So the story quite obviously has the authority to forgive sins and the power to heal the sick linked together. Then there's the bit about the people "prais[ing] God for giving such authority to people." Even if it's the authority to heal, Jesus links that to the authority to forgive sins in the story.
"the Rich Young Ruler does NOT call Jesus his God as Thomas does in John 20:28"
(con't) @Blogrich55 ...not precisely the same in wording and so on, but it's perfectly acceptable for comparison--in one story Jesus corrects someone for attributing a divine characteristic to him, in the other story Jesus does not.
@ProfMTH I admit to seeing your point about the authority to heal or forgive. The word is exousia in the Greek which is translated right or authority as opposed to dunamis which would be power. That said, however, there is still no logical comparison. Once again, the Rich Young Ruler was not worshiping Jesus. It was an act of obeisance. People were not rebuked for acts of obeisance. But it would have been evil for Jesus to have accepted worship if He were not God or YHWH incarnate.
@Blogrich55 "I admit to seeing your point about the authority to heal or forgive. The word is exousia in the Greek which is translated right or authority as opposed to dunamis which would be power. That said, however, there is still no logical comparison."
I'm not sure why you're saying "there is still no logical comparison" given your recognition of what the story actually says, including in the original language.
As for the story in John and your claim that it "would have been evil...
(con't) @Blogrich55 "...for Jesus to have accepted worship if He were not God," it seems quite clear that the author of the fourth gospel meant to portray Jesus as divine. The earlier canonical gospels--especially the earliest (Mark)--either don't portray him as such or there is a great deal of ambiguity (ambiguity that, at least in part, fueled many of the debates among early Christians about Jesus' identity and nature(s)).
@ProfMTH Mitch, I would simply point out that ambiguity concerning Christ's deity is NOT the same as absence or lack of the teaching of Christ's deity.
@Blogrich55 "I would simply point out that ambiguity concerning Christ's deity is NOT the same as absence or lack of the teaching of Christ's deity."
Note carefully what I wrote: "The earlier canonical gospels...either don't portray him as [god] OR there is a great deal of ambiguity (ambiguity that, at least in part, fueled many of the debates among early Christians about Jesus' identity and nature(s))" (emphasis added). I clearly distinguished absence and ambiguity from one another.
@ProfMTH - Hey bro! I don't mean to butt in a conversation, but I do hear your complaints of the ambiguity of the divinity of Jesus. Though it would have been terribly easy for Jesus to just tell people plainly (he even skirted it when asked point blank), I believe it was for a purpose.
Jesus often spoke in parables instead of plain teaching. When questioned about his methods, his response was: "...because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. " (cont)
This is a very interesting response. Intentionally making it ambiguous so that it would only be revealed by the Spirit (and to fulfill prophesy. See Mt 13:10-17)
"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear." God wanted it to be a specific gift from heaven to see Jesus for who he was.
@JoelTheCalvinist Thanks for the response. Just to be clear, I'm not merely pointing to ambiguity, but also to what seem to be denials of deity attributed to Jesus in some of the gospels. It's really not until the fourth canonical gospel that we have Jesus and others overtly and consistently speaking of Jesus as divine. Also I remain interested in your thoughts regarding the story in Matthew 9 that I mentioned in my original comment. Thanks!
@ProfMTH Sir as an ex-Roman Catholic, or, perhaps, still a one (though admittedly an atheist) I should think you would see my point very well about the lack of relevance between the two passages. Obeisance is similar to worship but NOT the same. When confronted by scriptures forbidding worship of anyone or anything other than God, in reference to the Virgin Mary, they have ALWAYS pointed out that they offered to her obeisance and NOT worship. Prostration before a superior is NOT worship Mitch
@Blogrich55 "Sir as an ex-Roman Catholic, or, perhaps, still a one (though admittedly an atheist)...."
I'm no longer a Catholic. One of the threshold requirements to be a Catholic is belief in God. The first line of the creed begins, "I believe in God...."
In any case, I took your earlier "no logical comparison" comment to be about Matthew 9. Hence my response. I see now that you meant it to apply to the comparison between the passages in John, Mark, and Luke. Sorry I misread that.
(con't) @Blogrich55 In any case, I've already stated what I regard as the basis of comparison, i.e., the attribution of divine qualities in the passages. Moreover, the thrust of my question is, as I explained, about the differing views among the gospels with respect to whether Jesus is divine.
Rich in order to have a viable disputation both parties must establish that WHICH CAN be provable by logic, reasoning, and understanding upon THE THINGS that are actually relevant to THE CONTEXT at hand...
1) John 20:28 verifies Yeshua' Resurrection NOTHING MORE, Trinitarians are blind to Their Catholicism' which They ignorantly acknowledge as AN ASSUMPTION of Thomas' words...
2) John 20:24-29 is about faithlessness not Doctrinal Divinity!
@Christianizers You obviously do not believe in Christ's deity. I have dealt with the
John 20:28 passage on various videos (most taken down) in some detail. PROVE logically that Jesus was denying His deity in His comments to the rich young ruler. Arguments from silence prove NOTHING. Walter Chantry argues, reasonably, that when Jesus begins to mention the 10 commandments, He purposely leaves out the 1st table because the RYR has already violated them by bowing down to One who one, who as...
You have provided NOTHING but an eisegetical opinion of John 20:28. It may very well be occasioned by the realization on the part of Thomas that Christ truly was resurrected. That being said, Thomas calls Him my Lord (kai) my God using the definite article both times.
1. He was NOT speaking first to Jesus and then praising YHWH (because of the Greek kai.)
2. He was NOT worshipping the God in Jesus as so commonly claimed by cultists. God is in us all.
2) 'Deity' implies eternality which 'the flesh' of man is not!
3) Obviously christians fail to see Their Own Eternality aka preexistence.
[PROVE logically that Jesus was denying His deity in His comments to the rich young ruler]
The words I type 'are the proof' that YAH mediates YAH' GRACE thru YAH' SON Yeshua' Ben YaHVeH ONLY, not thru 'the logic divining' of Yeshua' preexistence!
1. WHO said Christ was a name? He is called Jesus the Christ or Messiah.
2. WHO said the flesh or human nature of Jesus was eternal?
3. PLEASE this preexistence of Christians is nothing but LDS propaganda.
So, once again, I ask you to prove or demonstrate logically from the passage that Jesus was denying His deity to the Rich Young Ruler. Your incoherent response doesn't really prove anything.
1) You promulgate "A Hellenistic Antinomian Roman Christ" not A YAH GIVEN OBEDIENT HEBREW MESSIAH aka Yeshua' Ben YaHVeH.
2) Noone including Yeshua' 'in the flesh' was 'deity' but Your Hellenism' disagree.
3) Preexistence is when YAH SPOKE You and All Things into existence like 'a spark' in YAH' TIME becoming 'a flame' but only YAH can 'flame' that 'spark' from ever going out.
Calvin and Joseph Smith were both Antagonist' toward THE WILL OF YAH!
The Scriptures are given 'to light the path' of every mans life but not every man can find 'this path' cause of Mans Dogmas Darkening THE RECKONING OF YAH' WAY.
Yeshua' proved nothing 'in the mind' of A Talmudic Jew vs. The Repentant have 'taken to heart' that YAH' MESSIAH, HAS BEEN APPROVED!
@ProfMTH - I don't see Mark 10 and Luke 18 as Jesus correcting the man's belief about Jesus, I see it as Jesus correcting the man's belief about goodness. Jesus brings up his "negative" morality (abstinence), and points out his lack of positive morality (charity).
In Matthew 9 people marveled at what God had done through a man -- Jesus. He was condemned for forgiving sins, but revered for the authority to command a paralytic to walk. I think you're focusing on the "men" part? (cont)
@ProfMTH (cont) There are definitely two thrusts of the ministry of Jesus -- His divinity and his humanity. Since he is God in flesh he is both man and God. Verses about his humanity don't conflict with his deity, the spotlight other areas.
And to everyone around Jesus that only knew him as a public figure, he was only a man. And to see a man do such things of the power of God would definitely be something to marvel at.
Christians only deal with this issue cause men in the fifth century a.d. got together and voted on Jesus' Divinity which Jesus Himself never straightly said.
I could no longer defend 'a doctrine' that Jesus NEVER ESPOUSED.
Therefore leaving 'the institutionalized' church was quite easy for me considering the legalism' that crept in thru Pharisaical degrees i.e. if you don't believe that Jesus is God then you are not 'a christian'.
So be it for YAH' GLORY that I leave men to Their Own Demise!
Awesome videos, man. Keep it up and be encouraged in the Faith!
HideMyselfFrom421 5 months ago
There are many scriptures which point to the fact that Jesus is God. My favorite is his reply to Philip when asked to show the Father. He basically replies "After all this time, you don't know ME Philip?":
(John 14:8-9) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known ME, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
CallOutToJesus 1 year ago
Jesus was fully man and fully God. My name is nick. I am a son, a brother, and a father. But i am one person. There is only one God and his name is Jesus.
nicholastyler87 1 year ago
Amen Brother!!!
HeartOfFlesh1 1 year ago
In light of your statement about Jesus not correcting Thomas's declaration in John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God!"), I'd be interested in your take on a comparison between John 20:28 (where Jesus is not depicted correcting the speaker') and Mark 10:18 and its parallel in Luke 18:19 (where Jesus *is* depicted correcting the speaker). As for the authority to forgive sins, I'd be interested in your take on Matthew 9:6-8, which has Jesus talking about his authority to forgive sins, which is...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...followed by the author depicting the crowd "prais[ing] God for giving such authority to people." Among the interesting things about this passage is that Jesus speaks of "the Son of Man" having authority to forgive sins "here on earth." Some have argued that "Son of Man" as it is used in the gospels is merely a reference to an Aramaic term basically meaning "one of us" (i.e., humans). That would seem to comport with the reaction of the crowd as Matthew portrays it.
Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH...
Although Your Scripture References point out 'The Obvious' which Christians refuse to see it's only fair to also add that Jesus said in John 20:29 that,"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
And... Considering Your Stance as An Atheist employs You to NOT BELIEVE then please know that Your Brilliance is Your Own Downfall like The Christian Religion has become...
If You truly believed Jesus, You wouldn't be (A)THEIST!
Christianizers 1 year ago
@Christianizers I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here, Christianizers. In any case, I'm interested in Joel's thoughts on the things I asked about. This is his channel, after all. If you have something you'd like to say to me, don't clog up his page doing it. Feel free to send me a PM.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Same Old Professor playing light on someone else cause They don't match up to Your Scholarship, huh?
Let me say it straight for You Professor, You Atheists have no play 'in the game' of religion cause all of Atheism is nothing more than 'a disposal' of anger against anyone that believes differently than Your Given Logic.
Joey don't waste Your Time with The Finicky Professor, he only wishes You The Loss Of Any Hope IN YAH or IN YAH' SON Yeshua' Ben YaHVeH.
ProfMTH=Hedonist!
Selah...
Christianizers 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Mark 10:18 is a totally different situation. The Rich Young Ruler calls Jesus his God as Thomas does in John 20:28 Jesus asks him why he calls Him good. He points out to the man that no one is good but God. He does not deny being God. Neither does He confirm it. So this passage, as well as its parallel Luke 18:19 is irrelevant. The Rich Young Ruler was not worshiping Jesus.
As for the passage in Matthew 9: 6-8 the people are not marveling because Jesus was forgiving sins but healing.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
#2 TYPO ALERT: should read "the Rich Young Ruler does NOT call Jesus his God as Thomas does in John 20:28" sorry for any confusion. God bless you Joel you did a great job here.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 "As for the passage in Matthew 9: 6-8 the people are not marveling because Jesus was forgiving sins but healing."
That doesn't really make sense when one looks at the passage in context. The public dispute is about Jesus telling the man that his sins were forgiven. The story has Jesus making a point of saying to those who oppose him that he said that so they would know he had the authority to forgive sins on earth. (Of course, at that time people believed illness to be a...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @Blogrich55 ...punishment from their god for wrongdoing. We see this even in the gospels.) So the story quite obviously has the authority to forgive sins and the power to heal the sick linked together. Then there's the bit about the people "prais[ing] God for giving such authority to people." Even if it's the authority to heal, Jesus links that to the authority to forgive sins in the story.
"the Rich Young Ruler does NOT call Jesus his God as Thomas does in John 20:28"
It's...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @Blogrich55 ...not precisely the same in wording and so on, but it's perfectly acceptable for comparison--in one story Jesus corrects someone for attributing a divine characteristic to him, in the other story Jesus does not.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I admit to seeing your point about the authority to heal or forgive. The word is exousia in the Greek which is translated right or authority as opposed to dunamis which would be power. That said, however, there is still no logical comparison. Once again, the Rich Young Ruler was not worshiping Jesus. It was an act of obeisance. People were not rebuked for acts of obeisance. But it would have been evil for Jesus to have accepted worship if He were not God or YHWH incarnate.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 "I admit to seeing your point about the authority to heal or forgive. The word is exousia in the Greek which is translated right or authority as opposed to dunamis which would be power. That said, however, there is still no logical comparison."
I'm not sure why you're saying "there is still no logical comparison" given your recognition of what the story actually says, including in the original language.
As for the story in John and your claim that it "would have been evil...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @Blogrich55 "...for Jesus to have accepted worship if He were not God," it seems quite clear that the author of the fourth gospel meant to portray Jesus as divine. The earlier canonical gospels--especially the earliest (Mark)--either don't portray him as such or there is a great deal of ambiguity (ambiguity that, at least in part, fueled many of the debates among early Christians about Jesus' identity and nature(s)).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Mitch, I would simply point out that ambiguity concerning Christ's deity is NOT the same as absence or lack of the teaching of Christ's deity.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 "I would simply point out that ambiguity concerning Christ's deity is NOT the same as absence or lack of the teaching of Christ's deity."
Note carefully what I wrote: "The earlier canonical gospels...either don't portray him as [god] OR there is a great deal of ambiguity (ambiguity that, at least in part, fueled many of the debates among early Christians about Jesus' identity and nature(s))" (emphasis added). I clearly distinguished absence and ambiguity from one another.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH - Hey bro! I don't mean to butt in a conversation, but I do hear your complaints of the ambiguity of the divinity of Jesus. Though it would have been terribly easy for Jesus to just tell people plainly (he even skirted it when asked point blank), I believe it was for a purpose.
Jesus often spoke in parables instead of plain teaching. When questioned about his methods, his response was: "...because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. " (cont)
JoelTheCalvinist 1 year ago
@JoelTheCalvinist hey joel, what's up man, you haven't been talking to me lately.
DavidTheCatholic 1 year ago
@DavidTheCatholic - Sorry man, what's up?
JoelTheCalvinist 1 year ago
@JoelTheCalvinist please read the new pm i sent you, its very important
DavidTheCatholic 1 year ago
@ProfMTH - Cont..
This is a very interesting response. Intentionally making it ambiguous so that it would only be revealed by the Spirit (and to fulfill prophesy. See Mt 13:10-17)
"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear." God wanted it to be a specific gift from heaven to see Jesus for who he was.
JoelTheCalvinist 1 year ago
@JoelTheCalvinist Thanks for the response. Just to be clear, I'm not merely pointing to ambiguity, but also to what seem to be denials of deity attributed to Jesus in some of the gospels. It's really not until the fourth canonical gospel that we have Jesus and others overtly and consistently speaking of Jesus as divine. Also I remain interested in your thoughts regarding the story in Matthew 9 that I mentioned in my original comment. Thanks!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Sir as an ex-Roman Catholic, or, perhaps, still a one (though admittedly an atheist) I should think you would see my point very well about the lack of relevance between the two passages. Obeisance is similar to worship but NOT the same. When confronted by scriptures forbidding worship of anyone or anything other than God, in reference to the Virgin Mary, they have ALWAYS pointed out that they offered to her obeisance and NOT worship. Prostration before a superior is NOT worship Mitch
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 "Sir as an ex-Roman Catholic, or, perhaps, still a one (though admittedly an atheist)...."
I'm no longer a Catholic. One of the threshold requirements to be a Catholic is belief in God. The first line of the creed begins, "I believe in God...."
In any case, I took your earlier "no logical comparison" comment to be about Matthew 9. Hence my response. I see now that you meant it to apply to the comparison between the passages in John, Mark, and Luke. Sorry I misread that.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @Blogrich55 In any case, I've already stated what I regard as the basis of comparison, i.e., the attribution of divine qualities in the passages. Moreover, the thrust of my question is, as I explained, about the differing views among the gospels with respect to whether Jesus is divine.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@Blogrich55...
"He (Jesus) does not deny being God."
Rich in order to have a viable disputation both parties must establish that WHICH CAN be provable by logic, reasoning, and understanding upon THE THINGS that are actually relevant to THE CONTEXT at hand...
1) John 20:28 verifies Yeshua' Resurrection NOTHING MORE, Trinitarians are blind to Their Catholicism' which They ignorantly acknowledge as AN ASSUMPTION of Thomas' words...
2) John 20:24-29 is about faithlessness not Doctrinal Divinity!
Christianizers 1 year ago
@Christianizers You obviously do not believe in Christ's deity. I have dealt with the
John 20:28 passage on various videos (most taken down) in some detail. PROVE logically that Jesus was denying His deity in His comments to the rich young ruler. Arguments from silence prove NOTHING. Walter Chantry argues, reasonably, that when Jesus begins to mention the 10 commandments, He purposely leaves out the 1st table because the RYR has already violated them by bowing down to One who one, who as...
Blogrich55 1 year ago
...far as he, the RYR, knew was not God.
You have provided NOTHING but an eisegetical opinion of John 20:28. It may very well be occasioned by the realization on the part of Thomas that Christ truly was resurrected. That being said, Thomas calls Him my Lord (kai) my God using the definite article both times.
1. He was NOT speaking first to Jesus and then praising YHWH (because of the Greek kai.)
2. He was NOT worshipping the God in Jesus as so commonly claimed by cultists. God is in us all.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55...
[You obviously do not believe in Christ's deity]
1) 'Christ' is 'a title' not 'a name'!
2) 'Deity' implies eternality which 'the flesh' of man is not!
3) Obviously christians fail to see Their Own Eternality aka preexistence.
[PROVE logically that Jesus was denying His deity in His comments to the rich young ruler]
The words I type 'are the proof' that YAH mediates YAH' GRACE thru YAH' SON Yeshua' Ben YaHVeH ONLY, not thru 'the logic divining' of Yeshua' preexistence!
Selah..
Christianizers 1 year ago
@Christianizers
1. WHO said Christ was a name? He is called Jesus the Christ or Messiah.
2. WHO said the flesh or human nature of Jesus was eternal?
3. PLEASE this preexistence of Christians is nothing but LDS propaganda.
So, once again, I ask you to prove or demonstrate logically from the passage that Jesus was denying His deity to the Rich Young Ruler. Your incoherent response doesn't really prove anything.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55...
1) You promulgate "A Hellenistic Antinomian Roman Christ" not A YAH GIVEN OBEDIENT HEBREW MESSIAH aka Yeshua' Ben YaHVeH.
2) Noone including Yeshua' 'in the flesh' was 'deity' but Your Hellenism' disagree.
3) Preexistence is when YAH SPOKE You and All Things into existence like 'a spark' in YAH' TIME becoming 'a flame' but only YAH can 'flame' that 'spark' from ever going out.
Calvin and Joseph Smith were both Antagonist' toward THE WILL OF YAH!
Rich... NO MAN CAN PROVE YAH!
Christianizers 1 year ago
@Blogrich55,
YAH can only test and rePROVE 'the hearts' of all men NOT the other way around via A Man's Mental Ascent Into Ones Lawless Theology!
[Your incoherent response doesn't really prove anything]
The Scriptures are given 'to light the path' of every mans life but not every man can find 'this path' cause of Mans Dogmas Darkening THE RECKONING OF YAH' WAY.
Yeshua' proved nothing 'in the mind' of A Talmudic Jew vs. The Repentant have 'taken to heart' that YAH' MESSIAH, HAS BEEN APPROVED!
Christianizers 1 year ago
@ProfMTH - I don't see Mark 10 and Luke 18 as Jesus correcting the man's belief about Jesus, I see it as Jesus correcting the man's belief about goodness. Jesus brings up his "negative" morality (abstinence), and points out his lack of positive morality (charity).
In Matthew 9 people marveled at what God had done through a man -- Jesus. He was condemned for forgiving sins, but revered for the authority to command a paralytic to walk. I think you're focusing on the "men" part? (cont)
JoelTheCalvinist 1 year ago
@JoelTheCalvinist oh nothing just thought you were angry at me or something, sent you pms :P
DavidTheCatholic 1 year ago
@ProfMTH (cont) There are definitely two thrusts of the ministry of Jesus -- His divinity and his humanity. Since he is God in flesh he is both man and God. Verses about his humanity don't conflict with his deity, the spotlight other areas.
And to everyone around Jesus that only knew him as a public figure, he was only a man. And to see a man do such things of the power of God would definitely be something to marvel at.
JoelTheCalvinist 1 year ago
Well done, quite convincing.
Itrytotestify 1 year ago
Christians only deal with this issue cause men in the fifth century a.d. got together and voted on Jesus' Divinity which Jesus Himself never straightly said.
I could no longer defend 'a doctrine' that Jesus NEVER ESPOUSED.
Therefore leaving 'the institutionalized' church was quite easy for me considering the legalism' that crept in thru Pharisaical degrees i.e. if you don't believe that Jesus is God then you are not 'a christian'.
So be it for YAH' GLORY that I leave men to Their Own Demise!
Christianizers 1 year ago
@Christianizers Jesus claimed he was God, but you can demise if you so wish to do so.
DavidTheCatholic 1 year ago
@DavidTheCatholic...
"Thank You"!
Selah...
Christianizers 1 year ago