Jump to content
The World News Media

Jesus' Self-Witness


Cos

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:01 PM, Gone Away said:

David, a creature, who ruled in Jehovah's name and sat on Jehovah's throne referred to that Messianic kingdom as "my kingdom". (2Sam.3:28)

Hello Gone,

 

Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) while David’s clearly was.

 

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:01 PM, Gone Away said:

 

The Israelites put faith in Jehovah and in Moses, a creature, (Ex14:31) and this at the encouragement of Jehovah himself! (Ex.19:9)

Jehosaphat, a creature, encouraged the inhabitants of Jerusalem to put faith Jehovah's prophets , other creatures. (2Chr.20:20).

In John 14:1 Jesus admonishes His followers to have the same faith in Him as they have in God. He is linking Himself directly with God (see below). The Hebrew word used in the Scriptures that you reference does not have the same denotation.

 

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:01 PM, Gone Away said:

Peter, a creature, encouraged fellow Christians to have love for the whole association of brothers (creatures) which included himself. (1Pet.2:17)

And of course, the Lord Jesus made it clear that love for fellow Christians, creatures, which he exemplified, would identify his true followers. (John 13:34-35).

Yes we are to love others even fellow believers, but notice that Jesus requires us to love Him over and above (supremely) even our immediate family (Matt. 10:37).

 

When Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem, He was asked by the indignant Jews to silence the children who were praising Him (Matt. 21:16), Jesus defended their praise of Him by appealing to Psalm 8:2, which speaks of children praising God. Jesus justifies the praise of the children by applying to Himself a passage of Scripture applicable only to God. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2.2k
  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Matt 28:18: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.... John 5:22: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son,..." Hi Cos. See

One of the most striking features of the teachings of Jesus is that He was constantly talking about Himself. And to enter into the Kingdom depends on how we respond to Him personally; He even called t

What we have is nothing of the sort. It's a good thing you didn't write any of the Bible. What a dull book it would be. I guess they were about to learn a thing or two, weren't they? Not

  • Member
On 4/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, Cos said:

Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) while David’s clearly was.

Now this is interesting, but seems a little off target. Jesus's reference to Pilate surely has a connection with Luke 4:6 in view of Pilate's fear that he could be supporting Jesus in fronting a rival to Roman authority,  see Luke 23:14. That Roman authority was currently an expression of God's permission human rulership incidentally, compare Romans 13:1-4, something neither Pilate nor Ceasar would have discerned.. Pilate's fear was further stoked by the later chanting of the Jews: John 19:12; and the chief priests John 19:15.

As for the source of David's kingship, the Scripture indicates clearly: "And Solʹo·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelites were obedient to him." 1Chr.29:23.

The other responses you made do not stand up under scrutiny either.

On 4/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, Cos said:

Jesus requires us to love Him over and above (supremely) even our immediate family

Supreme love for Jesus is not a Scriptural teaching

On 4/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, Cos said:

Psalm 8:2, which speaks of children praising God. Jesus justifies the praise of the children by applying to Himself a passage of Scripture applicable only to God.

The action of the children does not prove Jesus to be God, any more than Jesus would see their praise of His heavenly Father to be a expresssion that he would misappropriate, compare Luke 4:7-8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, Gone Away said:

The action of the children does not prove Jesus to be God

Hello Gone,

 

It’s not “the actions of the children”, but the response of Jesus to the Jews that you should be considering. 

15 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Supreme love for Jesus is not a Scriptural teaching

Well, to Matthew 10:37 could be added John 21:15!

 

15 hours ago, Gone Away said:

The other responses you made do not stand up under scrutiny either.

I believe that they do, but by all means show me.

 

15 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Now this is interesting, but seems a little off target. 

Not at all, the Israelite kingdom was called the “throne of Jehovah” because it was set up by Him, but then later by no fault of God, divided and subsequently ceased to exist, that is not the Kingdom of God spoken of in the Scriptures…the two are not the same. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What Jesus is referring to in Matt. 10:37 is transcendent love. 

Mr. Smith,

 

Jesus’ words are quite clear; our supreme love must be for Him (see also John 21:15) because as you reason, He is the very truth we are to believe in (John 14:6). So my question to you is, do you LOVE HIM more than your immediate family? <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

For me one of the clearest indications of Jesus’ self-understanding is found in connection with His trial and condemnation.

 

When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7).

 

Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, Matthew reports the high priest to have said at the trial, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63).

 

Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.

 

He therefore affirmed under oath, at that council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the priest meant, Jesus replied, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (verse 64) , and for this He was condemned to death.

 

This is as clear a declaration of His Deity. Some will argue that Jesus was speaking satirically, and saying in effect, “You said that, not I.” However, three observations need to be made: (1) Jesus went on to speak of His power and second coming, thus confirming rather than contradicting the charge; (2) Jesus’ answer to the high priest in the parallel account in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 verses 61-62; (3) Jesus had the ideal opportunity here to correct any misconception which may have been involved. This he did not do.

 

The Jews’ reaction is instructive. When the high priest said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” they replied, “He deserves death” (Matt. 26:65-66). The crime according to the Jews was that Jesus claimed what only God has the right to claim, and Jesus did not dispute the charge.

 

According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7).

 

This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus because the Jews considered Him a creature, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.

 

So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King.  To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38).   

 

In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God in the high sense, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it.

 

To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death.  Nowhere does Jesus dispute the charge. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Cos said:

response of Jesus to the Jews

The response of Jesus to the Jews in quoting from Ps 8:2 is no more an assertion that he is God than the words of the original Psalm itself are written to encourage the viewing of the moon and stars, or even mortal man, to be God. The praise of the children in both cases is a reflection of their appreciation for the wonderful works of Jehovah. Thus, the prophetically indicated presentation of Jesus as God's means of salvation and all that the arrangement encompassed on that occasion, was indeed a reason for all to give praise to God. The children on that occasion shamed the chief priests and scribes in this respect. This is the picture presented at Matt. 21:15-16.

As for "the inner thoughts of the scribes", their "heart's abundance" was reflected in their own words later on: 

"He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’”" Matt.27:43  and

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s sonJohn 19:7

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Well, to Matthew 10:37 could be added John 21:15

Looking for an indication of "supreme" there but without success.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

by all means show me

I don't see a reason for doing this yet, as the arguments I have considered appear to be rather porous so far. I will continue to keep an eye on the thread however.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:51 PM, Gone Away said:

Looking for an indication of "supreme" there but without success.

Hello Gone

In Mark 12:30-31 we have these words;

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

 

We know from Matt. 10:37 and John 21:19 that Jesus does not fall within the second ordinance, therefore there only remains the first.

But you guys don’t like this fact and do whatever you can to explain away the clear teaching, claiming to look for certain words or phrases ignoring the obvious because you can’t conciliate the fact with that false theological perspective you have. 

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:51 PM, Gone Away said:

This is the picture presented at Matt. 21:15-16.

It seems to me that the implication of Jesus ascribing to Himself what was only applicable to God is too much for your theological view, so, without any Scriptural backing for your assertion, you have to explain away the passage by reading into it what you call “the picture presented”. Here is a clear fault in your explanation; nowhere does the inspired writer even allude to anything resembling your claim for the account…nowhere, it must totally be read into the passage.

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:51 PM, Gone Away said:

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s sonJohn 19:7

I address this in an above post.

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:51 PM, Gone Away said:

I don't see a reason for doing this yet

If I’m wrong...then that surely should be reason enough. 

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:51 PM, Gone Away said:

 I will continue to keep an eye on the thread however.

Please do. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:33 AM, AllenSmith said:

That’s what transcendent love is.

Mr. Smith,

 

You did not answer my question, either you love Jesus more, or you do not.

 

You even cite Mark 12:30-3, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

 

We know from Matt. 10:37 and John 21:19 that Jesus does not fall within the second ordinance, therefore there only remains the first. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Cos said:

In Mark 12:30-31 we have these words;

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

 

We know from Matt. 10:37 and John 21:19 that Jesus does not fall within the second ordinance, therefore there only remains the first.

But you guys don’t like this fact and do whatever you can to explain away the clear teaching, claiming to look for certain words or phrases ignoring the obvious because you can’t conciliate the fact with that false theological perspective you have. 

Mark 12:30-31, in fact, the entirety of Mark 12:28-34 is of Jesus affirming/acknowledging the Shema (Shema Yisrael) when he was with the scribe. Moreover, Jesus and the Jewish scribe show us how the Shema is to be understood. He proves that the oneness indicated in the Shema is a oneness of identity, not nature, and that the God in question is the God of both Jesus and this scribe.

The Shema is an act of being heard, as well as being an affirmation of one doing such acknowledging He/She has a God who is also their Father, for the Shema is based off the very law of the Jews, Deuteronomy 6:4-13 in the Torah/Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament). Later on, Apostle Paul himself later on affirms the Shema also 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Plus to be more specific, Deuteronomy 6:4 which reads: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God, the LORD [YHWH] is one."

It is so great that even today majority of people practice the Shema, even the likes of Islam for they have it in the Sura 112, the Shema is not only famous, but holds the same kind of importance for us, just as it was important to Jesus, as well as the Jews.

A man or woman who really loves God acknowledges who He is, and want nothing more but to be heard by their Father in Heaven, who is also their God - The God of Israel.

The Jewish scribe qualified the Shema, "the Lord [YHWH] our God the Lord [YHWH] is one" by telling us these words mean, "He is one, and there is no other but He." And Jesus tells us that he responded intelligently. "The Lord is one". The words, "there is no other but He" means that HE is the only one, that is, "the Lord our God the Lord is one." Jesus and the scribe makes it clear to us that there is no doubt about the meaning of the words "the Lord is one" as well as the acknowledgment of the Shema Yisrael straight out of the Torah/Hebrew Old Testament.

Jesus also tells us this is the foremost commandment of the Law. As a Jew under the Law, he was required to obey this commandment like every other Israelite. And the commandment calls every Israelite to recognize the God of Israel, "OUR God." This command was for every Jew to recognize the God of every Jew. Jesus obeyed this commandment to recognize only the God of Israel by recognizing only one HE as his God, the Father alone. Jesus himself shows us how the Shema command was to be obeyed by every Jew - by recognizing only this one person, his Father, as the God of Israel.

In the end, Jesus refers to the Shema is referring, which refers to only one person: the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 20:17 - Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

As for Matthew 10:37, not many Christians take this verse literally, mainly when you couple it with God's Laws, which is also connected with what Jesus expects from the church. This verse connects directly to Matthew 19:29 and Luke 14:26.

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

This means if your love for Jesus, in turn your love to the Father is more stronger than that of those in your household or even a friend. For we know not everyone is cool with someone serving God, even that of family members, for they will consider the act of serving and religious worship to God as well as going by the words of Jesus is a daunting task, sometimes, they believe it is crazy, fanatical, something of that nature, other times they will try to stop you, in the end, your love for Jesus and for his namesake, and by means of the reward his Father will provide will reap eternal life, even though such family members are against you, friends, etc.

As said before, not many Christians take these verses seriously and literally, therefore, cherry picking the scriptures.

John 2:19 speaks for itself -that is, if one understands what Jesus was saying and what the Jews were assuming, in this case, the Jews were assuming Jesus was speaking about Herod's temple, but clearly they didn't understand or try to figure out what he met, which is quite obvious to the common bible reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Bible believing Christians understand the Hebrew word echad is used in the Old Testament to mean one and one alone. But we acknowledge that this word has two meanings: unified and the singular one (see Strong’s Dictionary and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament).

 

 

 

For Christians the word "echad", used to describe God's oneness in Deut 6:4, is exactly what we would expect to find because it is the only Hebrew word that can denote a unity or unified oneness.

 

 

 

The use of echad in Deut. 6:4 is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a unity of Persons. There are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such an idea could be expressed.

 

 

 

Interestingly when Jesus quoted Deut 6:4 in Mark 12:29 and chose the Greek corresponding unifying word "hen" which is the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 19:5, "the two shall become one (hen) flesh. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Cos said:

Bible believing Christians understand the Hebrew word echad is used in the Old Testament to mean one and one alone. But we acknowledge that this word has two meanings: unified and the singular one (see Strong’s Dictionary and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament).

Actually it only has one meaning. I address that to you before, detailed actually, if you are forgetting. Echad, to a sense, just means one, not two, not three, not four, not infinity.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/259.htm

2 hours ago, Cos said:

For Christians the word "echad", used to describe God's oneness in Deut 6:4, is exactly what we would expect to find because it is the only Hebrew word that can denote a unity or unified oneness.

The use of echad in Deut. 6:4 is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a unity of Persons. There are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such an idea could be expressed.

Addressed before when you tried to make it into something that it is not. And it is stuff like this why several specific groups give Christians a hard time with due to the man made interpretations of those who make echad into something totally different.

 

2 hours ago, Cos said:

Interestingly when Jesus quoted Deut 6:4 in Mark 12:29 and chose the Greek corresponding unifying word "hen" which is the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 19:5, "the two shall become one (hen) flesh. <><

Jesus was quoting the Shema Yisrael, the Foremost Greatest Commandment, among the very law that Jesus was born into, Galatians 4:4, the very law that Jews and Muslims recite today, as well as Christians who adhere to the Shema, referring to it as the Law and or the Law of Christ regards to what Jesus said to the scribe. The Shema is a literal affirmation and or acknowledgement that one has a God who is his or her Father, Jesus affirm this, even Paul affirmed this.

I really hate to use large quotes, but I, as do True Christians, do not like Christians butchering what the Shema is, and those who break or not recognize God's Law, Jesus had this to say in Matthew 7:23 - But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'.

s

Now then on to the large quotes, this one from Kel, I will not use a Hebrew Professor because it would prove to be a devastating blow.

Deuteronomy 6:4
The Shema
Quote
"Hear O Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is one."

"Hear O Israel, YHWH our God YHWH is one."
 

Proof of the Trinity Error

The fact that Jesus was born under the Law and was required to observe the Law, demonstrates to us beyond doubt precisely WHO this passage is identifying: the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The Evidence

1. The LORD is One or the LORD is Three?

While the text says that the LORD/Yahweh is one, Trinitarians would have us believe that we can also imagine a different idea into this passage, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is three," or, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is three yet one." Or, Trinitarians alternatively often imagine the text to be saying, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is one [divine ousia]. Simply contemplating these Trinitarian claims should be enough to cause one to seriously question the plausibility of the Trinitarian interpretation(s) of this verse.

 

2. "We Jews worship what we know for salvation is from the Jews." - Jesus

It should be obvious that Jesus' God was not any different than the God of Israel, the God of every Israelite. As a Jew under the Law, he was obligated to obey the Law and Jesus' God could not be any different than the God of Israel who is identified at Deut 6:4 as "OUR God." Christ's God was one person and one person alone: his Father alone, and nobody else. If his God was one person then so was the God of Israel.

Let the reader honestly contemplate one simple thing. When young Jesus was reading the Old Testament Scriptures, and he read about all the things his God had done, precisely WHO did Jesus have in mind? Is it remotely rational to suppose young Jesus was thinking about the good ole days when He Himself led Israel out of Egypt? Did he suppose that his God, the God of Israel, was he himself? How is that even going to make any sense? Or was Jesus supposing all those wonderful stories about the God of Israel in the Old Testament Scriptures, his God, were stories about the accomplishments of a three person being? Is it not far fetched beyond rational behavior to suppose such a thing? Or was young Jesus thinking about his Father and his Father alone, his God? If so, then is that not precisely who the Old Testament was talking about when it described all the things God had done?

Let us suppose the same scenario with young Jesus but let us also suppose we weren't talking about the Trinity here and that doctrine was completely out of view. Let us suppose we were simply focusing upon young Jesus and his Jewish life under the Law among a group of Trinitarians. We both know precisely WHO Trinitarians would suppose Jesus had in mind when he read about his God in the Old Testament Scriptures. Don't we? I can tell you how I know. Many times, I have observed Trinitarians acknowledge that the Old Testament Scriptures are simply references to the Father, at least until, someone says the word "Trinity," and then everything suddenly changes and a radical mind-shift takes place. Why? Is this word a signal to ignore reality for the sake of a creedal doctrine?

Trintiarians claim that the Jews did not know they had been worshiping a three-person-being throughout the history of the Old Testament and continued to do so until the Trinity had been revealed to them in New Testament times. However, Jesus declared the opposite. In the context of the appropriate worship of God, Jesus declared that the Jews worshiped what they knew (John 4:20-22). Trinitarians are nullifying Jesus' words for the sake of their tradition. Not only so, they fail to see the implications of Jesus' words, WE worship what WE know. Jesus is including himself among all Jews and saying that all the nation of Israel knew what they worshiped just as he himself knew what he worshiped. Jesus knew who he worshiped as the God of Israel: his Father alone. And Jesus used the word "WE" indicating that ALL Jews knew this and not just he himself.

 

3. Shema - the Foremost Command of the Law

Jesus also taught that the foremost command of the Law was the Shema command, that is, Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What command is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to Him, “You are correct, Teacher. You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” Mark 12:28-34

As a Jew under the Law, Jesus was required to keep this command just like every other Jew. This is a very important fact that we must keep in mind and appreciate rather than ignore.

 

4. The LORD is one single "He"

At Mark 12:28-34, Jesus and a Jewish scribe agreed that the Shema is the foremost command. They also agreed that the words "the Lord is one" mean "He is one and there is no other but He. In this account, Jesus shows us that the Shema means "the Lord is one HE." So we know for certain that Shema means that the Lord is one HE, one WHO,while Trinitarians commonly read the notion, "the LORD is one WHAT" (divine nature) into the text ignoring nullifying the testimony of Jesus concerning the meaning of the Shema. For the Trinitarian, the LORD is three "HEs" (three persons) and one "What" (the divine nature as described in Trinitarian doctrine). But according to Jesus and this scribe, Yahweh is one single "HE/HIM" and there is no other but HE. Jesus and this Jewish scribe agree that the words "the Lord is one" mean that their God is one single HE.

While it is a fact denied by Trinitarians, reasonable people understand that the word "HE" or "HIM" are words used to refer to a single person. Signifying a single person is the very purpose of using singular personal pronouns. Hence, at Mark 12:28-34, Jesus' witness shows us that the Shema is referring to one person. And the proof is in the pudding when we honestly regard how Jesus obeyed the Shema. He observed the Shema command by recognizing and serving only one person as the God of Israel, his Father alone, "HIM."

Jesus agreed that the words "the Lord is one" mean "there is no other but "HIM." And we also know with absolute certainly how Jesus identified that one single HE.. We know how Jesus interpreted Deuteronomy 6:4 because we know how he obeyed it. Jesus showed us unambiguously what Deuteronomy 6:4 means. He did not identify this HE as a Triune being. The way Jesus obeyed the Shema command was to recognize and serve his Father alone as the one God of Israel, "OUR God." According to Jesus, that one HE was no one else but his Father.

 

5. "Yahweh OUR God"

It is also an extremely significant fact that the Shema says "OUR God." Let the reader understand that this command was given to the nation of Israel. It says, "Hear O Israel" and the words "OUR God" refer to all those Israelites under the Law. The Shema was a command to serve the God of every Israelite, the God of Israel, and that included Jesus because he was an Israelite under Law along with all of the rest of them and he was required to obey this command along with all of them. Jesus could not have interpreted the Shema to mean one thing while it really meant something else for the rest of the Jewish nation. This is because the command to Jesus was to serve "OUR God" not just his God. He was required to recognize "OUR God," that is, the God of Israel. He could not have interpreted the Shema to refer to one person while it actually meant three persons for every other Jew. Such a proposition is absurd. Jesus could not have possibly interpreted the Shema to refer to only his Father, which he did, while at the same time it referred to three persons for every other Israelite. Why? The Shema command says "OUR" God. Who then was "OUR" God? One thing is for certain, Jesus' God was not a three person being and he obeyed this command. Hence, we know "OUR God" simply cannot refer to a three person being.

 

6. The Father is not the Triune Being

In Trinitarian doctrine, the Father is not the Triune Being. That would be saying the Father is three persons which Trinitarians deny. In Trinitarian doctrine, the Father is but one person OF the Triune being. The Triune being is not the Father and the Father is not the Triune being. Because of this fact, Trinitarians cannot identify "God" in the Scriptures as both the Father and the Triune being. The following illustrates this fact.

"He is God and there is no other but He/Him." Deuteronomy 4:35.

Trinitarians simply cannot identify the "He" in the above verse as the Father. They must refuse to do so since that verse would then declare that nobody but the Father alone is God which contradicts Trinitarian doctrine. By insisting it refers to the Triune God, "HE", they are demonstrating to us that any given verse about God is either referring to the Triune being OR to the Father but not both. As illustrated by Deuteronomy 4:35, they can't have it both ways because they know very well it would make no sense. And it would make no sense because the Triune HE is not the same HE in their doctrine as the Father.

Therefore, it should be clear that in the same way, the Shema either refers to the Triune being or it refers to the Father. If "OUR God" refers to the Triune being, then Jesus was required to obey the commanded to serve the Triune being as his God. But if "OUR God" refers rather to the Father alone, then Jesus, and every other Israelite, was commanded to obey this command by recognizing only the Father as their God. And by his own testimony, Jesus shows us precisely WHO the Shema has in view: his Father alone. This is how Jesus obeyed the command to serve the God of Israel, "OUR God."

 

7. The God of Jesus = the God of Israel: "OUR God"

Throughout the New Testament, we find that the God of Jesus was the Father alone. His God was not a Triune being; his God was only his Father.

Jesus' God was one person: his Father. Jesus' God was a one person being: the Father alone. A one-person God is not the same God as a three-person God and for that reason we cannot say that Jesus' God was a three-person-being. A three-person-God is not the same thing as a one-person-God. Trinitarians testify themselves that if you do not serve a three-person-God as they do, they you serve another God, a different God.

Now since Jesus was born under the Law, and he was required to observe the Law, he was therefore required to observe the Shema, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one. You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). Simply ask yourself how Jesus was expected to obey this command. Ask yourself who Jesus identified as his one God in order to obey this command. It is quite simple to see that Jesus did obey the command to serve "OUR God" he did this by serving his Father alone. It was his Father alone who he loved with all his heart and all his soul and all his strength. If we suppose the "OUR God" identified at Deuteronomy 6:4 is really a Triune being, then Jesus disobeyed the Law since he did not worship or serve any Triune being nor did he love a Triune being "with all his heart and all his soul and all his strength." Either Jesus knowingly disobeyed the Shema or the Shema is not referring to a Triune God. It is one or the other and there is no escaping that plain fact. Else Jesus also did not know his God was Triune like every other Jew (as Trinitarians claim), in which case, Jesus in his ignorance cannot possibly be the one God.

 

Conclusion

The undeniable facts confront us. (1) Jesus taught the Shema was the foremost command of the Law. (2) He agreed the Shema command "the Lord is one" meant that God is one single "HE." (3) As a Jew born under the Law, he was circumcised into the Law and required to keep this command of the Law. (4) And the command was a command to all the people of Israel to serve "OUR God," Israel's God. Jesus interpreted and obeyed the command to serve "OURGod" by recognizing and serving only one person. Jesus himself clearly proves to us what the Shema means by how he obeyed the command to serve "OUR God." He showed us that it necessarily means "the Father of Jesus is OUR God, the Father of Jesus is one" and that one must love the Father of Jesus with all his heart, soul, and strength. The testimony of Jesus's obedience to the Shema command to serve "OUR God" decisively demonstrates that the God of Jesus, who was/is one person, is necessarily equivalent to the God of Israel.

Should any of us reasonably suppose that when Jesus heard his brothers (Mary's sons) citing the Shema that he was secretly thinking, "There they go talking about me again" or perhaps, "There they go talking about US again" (a three person being). It is simply ridiculous. Or shall we reasonably conclude that Jesus, like all his Jewish brethren, interpreted the Shema in the same way - by recognizing and obeying only the Father of Jesus as his only God since only the Father was their God too? Is that not what "OUR God" means? And indeed, at John 4:2-22, Jesus indicates to us that Jews had been worshiping the Father in Jerusalem, worshiping what "we know."

It should be quite clear to anyone that Jesus' God was the Father alone and no one else. It should also be quite clear that Jesus was required to obey the Law and the Shema. It was not a Triune being which Jesus loved with all his heart and all his soul and all his mind. It was his Father alone. And if he indeed obeyed the Shema by serving and worshiping his Father alone as the only true God, then it should also be quite clear that only the Father is the one true God. Otherwise, Jesus knowingly disobeyed the Law and you are dead in your sins.

Jesus specifically identified "OUR God" for us, Israel's God; he identified the one God of the Shema command for us. And the way he did that for us is by showing us who someone under the Law must worship as his God: his Father alone. If Jesus worshiped the Father alone as his God but the God of the Shema, "OUR God," was really a Triune being, then Jesus our Lord either misinterpreted or disobeyed the foremost command of the Law. Either that, or Jesus did it right and Trinitarians are disregarding the testimony of Jesus on the matter concerning the identity of "OURGod" whom Jesus was commanded to serve. To deny these facts is simply an irrational response for the sake of a man-made doctrine. Let every reasonable person see that the facts here undeniably prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the God of the Shema is identical to the God of Jesus, his Father alone, and cannot be said to refer to a three person being without contradicting Scripture and the witness of Jesus Himself.

 
"I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." John 20:17

Related: Deuteronomy 4:35 Deuteronomy 32:39 Mark 12:28-34

 

Some people will never change, and they continue to break themselves, piece by piece, trying so hard to believe they are right - when clearly they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Strong’s dictionary has for the Hebrew word “echad”, Strong’s number 259; “A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One…”

 

My electronic version of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament has “united” as one of the meaning for the Hebrew word (see pages 28-29 in the hardcopy version).

 

Also the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible has as the basic meaning for the word as “unity”.

 

BDB also identifies the word as "plural" in meaning.

 

According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament echad is closely identified with achad “the root meaning to be united (page 30).

 

Even though some deny the facts, the Hebrew word “echad” can and does have the plural meaning united. <><

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
  • Members

    • linwllc

      linwllc 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.