The Learner
Well-Known Member
list those questions, friendProjecting.
And I have quoted Scripture - just not the Scripture you claim I quote.
It’s obvious to anyone watching our exchange that you are not answering questions.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
list those questions, friendProjecting.
And I have quoted Scripture - just not the Scripture you claim I quote.
It’s obvious to anyone watching our exchange that you are not answering questions.
Not Jesus! Perhaps Isaiah’s own son, who’s son ‘Is’ born - not will be in 6 centuries.
Friend, we all believe Jesus is full God and fully Man. It was his human side that grew.Yes, Ok. Now about the answers to my questions.
See below. Numerous other posts are similar.list those questions, friend
@Jack
Everything belongs to God, and all things were created by his power. So God did the right thing when he made Jesus perfect by suffering
Hebrews 2:10
QUESTIONS
1. Notice how nothing belongs to Jesus? According to the text, everything belongs to someone else.
2. To who does everything belong?
3. Notice how Jesus is not said to be eternally perfect?
(He changed over time. He was made perfect. This proves Jesus' nature is NOT that of an unchanging deity)4. Also, notice how Jesus did not make himself perfect?
5. Who made Jesus perfect by suffering?
Perhaps another point is that God cannot suffer for he is all powerful. Further proof Jesus is not who you say he is.
Rather than copy and paste verses, please provide conclusion of your analysis relative to the discussion. Thanks!Isaiah 7
Easy-to-Read Version
Isaiah 9:6there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.
....
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with “Elijah,” “Abijah,” etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.
Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.
For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his king” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840.
And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm .
Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.
....
In light of the above therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)
to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”
From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:
".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"
And The Leeser Bible says:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”
Of course it could also be honestly translated:
“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”[8]
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[a] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
Not I. The son of God is what Scripture says of Jesus. That’s good enough for me.Friend, we all believe Jesus is full God and fully Man. It was his human side that grew.
Jesus did rebuke Thomas. In John 20 Thomas had plainly stated he would never believe unless he saw the resurrected Jesus and then Jesus said that only those who have not seen, yet believe, are blessed. That means Thomas isn't blessed.
John 20
24Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”
29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
That's my point actually. Jesus is the authority not Thomas. Please substantiate your allegations about what Jesus taught regarding his deity. Where did Jesus teach he is God?
You seemed to have read it more than I have. Are you a JW?
John 17:3 and Ephesians 4:6 say the One Singular God is the Father.
Not according to Scripture.
Yahweeh calls me one of his sons, Daniel MarshYou seem to have an unhealthy fixation with Jehovah’s Witnesses for some reason……every person who disagrees with you is not a JW, I assure you. If you could just stretch your imagination a little bit you will see that people have a wide variety of beliefs and still call themselves “Christians”……do you call yourself a Christian? What does God call you?…….you see, it’s not what we call ourselves that matters….it’s what God calls us that counts. Right?
There is only one truth Jack…..are you sure that you have it right…..who told you that what you believe is true? When Jesus comes to judge mankind what will he say?
Matt 7:21-23…KJV…
”Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
You need to read that carefully because it is in your own KJV language…..
Not everyone who calls Jesus their “Lord” is bound for “the kingdom of heaven”…only those “doing the will of the Father” will have that privilege. What does it mean to “do the will of the Father” Jack? Can you tell me?
Who are the “many” who do all these things “in his name”, believing that these kinds of things confirm their Christian faith?…..and what are these “wonderful works”?…”casting out devils”? and “prophesying”?
What he says to them next is shocking, because they cannot believe what he says about these wonderful works that they have done “in his name”……”I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY”. Ouch!!
Do you see the confidence with which they appeal to him as if he has somehow made a mistake concerning the expression of their Christian faith? How many people believe exactly what you do?
“I NEVER KNEW YOU” means that he has never recognized their “Christianity” as genuine. In fact he sees it as “works of iniquity”. What is iniquity, Jack?
According to Strong’s Concordance it means…
So these ones are breaking God’s laws but still professing to be Christians…..what laws could they be breaking even out of ignorance? Obviously they have no idea that that they are doing anything wrong. Yet Jesus rejects them….do you know why?
- the condition of without law
- because ignorant of it
- because of violating it
- contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness”.
What do you think? How do you explain that?
good joke picNot only that, he has no grasp of logic whatsoever! A fallacy of argumentation is called Poisoning The Well. In his mind, he need not refute claims he does not agree with using facts, logic or sound principles.
All he need do is claim "that is a JW argument" as though slander were sufficient for one to deny the validity. Imagine you or @Keiw retoring, "That'a non-JW argument." Phew. Case closed. It's kind of funny when you put the shoe on the other foot.
To me, Jack is like the comic relief characer in so many movies, like Gimli in Lord of the Rings. I can always count on a laugh when I see one of his posts.
View attachment 46000
Jack is mislead. Many are on earth.Not only that, he has no grasp of logic whatsoever! A fallacy of argumentation is called Poisoning The Well. In his mind, he need not refute claims he does not agree with using facts, logic or sound principles.
All he need do is claim "that is a JW argument" as though slander were sufficient for one to deny the validity. Imagine you or @Keiw retorting, "That'a non-JW argument." Phew. Case closed. It's kind of funny when you put the shoe on the other foot.
To me, Jack is like the comic relief character in so many movies, like Gimli in Lord of the Rings. I can always count on a laugh when I see one of his posts.
View attachment 46000
Any thoughts on the "shall be called?"
I do. Most stories have a beginning, middle and end or past, current and future.Any thoughts on the "shall be called?"