marhig
Well-known member
And did those Jewish leaders have God in there hearts?
Jesus is God.
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
lifeisgood
New member
Yes.
marhig
Well-known member
If we want to take this to its final conclusion, you and I crucified Jesus.[/QUOTE]
No way, I'm not with the save me thief on the cross I'm with the other thief on the cross saying "you and I deserve to die because this man has done nothing wrong!'
lifeisgood
New member
Incredible that you chose to reject Jesus' sacrifice so that you can be with the thief that was lost. Arrogantly believing that you can bring the works of your hands which have already being rejected, just like the thief that chose to reject the King of kings and the Lord of lords who was right there in front of him proving Salvation way to him.
Another DENIER of the Deity of Christ. How sad. How sad indeed.
marhig
Well-known member
Did they have God in their hearts? I don't think so!
Read this
Acts 2
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Why would God be in them if they killed Jesus by wicked hands? God isn't wicked. Satan killed Jesus through the Jewish leaders. And no way would God come in flesh and allow that to happen!
marhig
Well-known member
That's strange, because Jesus said to that thief, today you will be with me in paradise, he ignored the save me thief!
lifeisgood
New member
Sure they had God in their hearts, they crucified the Lord in the Name of the Lord.
They believed they were being faithful to God.
lifeisgood
New member
And you deny the Deity of Jesus the Christ which is the same as the save me thief.
marhig
Well-known member
They we're wicked, they even wanted to break his legs to make sure he was dead so that he wouldn't be hanging on the cross on the Sabbath, how can you even say that they had God in their hearts. No they never had God anywhere near them, they were full of sin.
No wonder people think it's ok to sin and they're still going to heaven no problem, if they can believe that people who done those wicked things to Jesus had God in their hearts, they can believe anything!
marhig
Well-known member
Um no, I know that Jesus is the Christ, which is what God revealed to Peter. I know that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Not God the son, God didn't reveal that one to Peter.
Jesus was murdered by wicked people who were envious him because the people loved him. They were proud and self righteous and loved the praise of men before God. They crucified the holy son of God with wicked hands and cruel hearts.
God was nowhere near them, I can't believe that people actually think that God was in the hearts of the men who handed over Jesus Christ to be crucified, it's unbelievable!
lifeisgood
New member
Sure they had God in their hearts, they crucified the Lord in the Name of the Lord.
They believed they were being faithful to God by crucifying Jesus the Christ.
Just like you.
They believed they were being faithful to God by crucifying Jesus the Christ.
So, in their way of thinking they did have God in their hearts.
They did all the sacrifices and ceremonial rituals thinking that the doing was what God wanted.
Is it any different today?
lifeisgood
New member
Another one devising a false doctrine out of ONE verse. Rejecting the whole counsel of Scripture.
Correct. Because they believed they were doing God a favor.
Another one with a reading comprehension. Where have I said that God was near them?
I can't believe that you are AGAINST God's Plan of Salvation and you wish that Jesus go not to the Cross of Calvary. Remember what the Lord said to Peter, "Get thee behind Me, Satan."
Sure they had God in their hearts, from their way of thinking, they crucified the Lord in the Name of the Lord.
They believed they were being faithful to God by crucifying Jesus the Christ.
Nowhere does that say that God was near them. That is something you, marhig, made up all on your lonesome self.
And you, marhig, denying the Deity of Jesus the Christ are in the same place as the save me thief.
Getting Jesus wrong it matters not what else you get right, you marhig, got Jesus wrong.
marhig
Well-known member
Isis think that they have God in their hearts, but they haven't!
God wasn't with them, no matter what you say. And you didn't say that they had God in their hearts in their way of thinking, you said yes, that they did have God with them. No they didn't!
And yes I'm a sinner, at least I admit it and I know that I have to obey the teachings of Jesus and deny myself. I don't just think I can carry on and sin wilfully and still go to heaven.
And no it isn't any different today, because if we keep wilfully sinning then we are crucifying the son of God afresh and putting him an open shame!
marhig
Well-known member
You twist and turn, first you say that they had God in their hearts as then you change and say that you never said God was near them.
I have never said that Jesus didn't have to go through what he did on the cross, Jesus had to bare whatever Satan threw at him and overcome him and still show love and mercy, and he did, and he fulfilled all the prophecies in the old testament, but I don't believe that he died on the cross to save anyone I believe we are reconciled by his death but saved by his life. As it says in the Bible we are saved by the life of Jesus. Death doesn't save life saves!
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
Your messiah who didn't fulfil the messianic prophecies is of course NOWHERE to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
See here what is going on in Isaiah 9:
Isaiah 9:2-7 "2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. 5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Please take notice of the fact that Isaiah is talking in the past tense: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.|
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name was called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
These are things which had happened already in the days of Isaiah.
If, despite these facts, you still want to apply these verses to JC, than read verse 5, 6, and 7, and see that JC didn't do any of those things. He never ruled on the throne of David, he never had any government on his shoulders, and there never was endless peace over his kingdom.
The same holds true for the verses 6 and 7: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
All of this doesn't hold true for JC; he never had any government on his shoulder. And also here is spoken in the past tense: "A child is born, a son is given. But most translations give it in the future tense. For instance the RSV, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, NIRV, the all say; "His name will be called ....", future tense. However, in the Hebrew text this too is past tense: "His name was called ...." The Hebrew expression here is "wayikra". That is the first word in the book of Leviticus. And all the previously mentioned translations there say: "And the Lord called Mozes ..." Past tense. Exactly the same the word. Isn't that weird? Exactly the same word is used in Genesis 5:1; "And God called the light 'day'" Called. Past tense. Nobody argues with that one. But why then, in Isaiah 9, is it suddenly changed to future tense? The answer is simple: The past tense doesn't fit with the Christian theology, and therefore the Bible translations are corrupted and twisted to fit the Christian religion. Just like that. There is only one solution for this problem: Take a course in Biblical Hebrew. It is more easy then it looks. Then your eyes will be opened and the Christian deception will stare you in the face. And yes, I do sympathize with the poor misguided Christians whom are being led astray by their clergy by means of twisted and corrupted Bible translations. That's the reason why I fulfill my duty of being a light unto the nations and uncovering the Christian deception.
"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" "There will be no end", future tense. And this too is WRONG. It is in the Hebrew present tense. I found only one translation which is correct here, and that is Young's Literal Translation.
Why all this stress on the tenses? Isaiah spoke about a king who was living in his days, and therefore JC is out. The king that Isaiah speaks about is Hezekiah, the son of Achaz who got from Isaiah the sign about the young woman (no, not the virgin) who was pregnant and gave birth to the son Immanuel.
The Talmud explains that under the rule of the God fearing Hezekiah the Jewish kingdom rose to great heights, and that's why he was entitled to those impressive titles.
Because of the fact that the name of the son is "Mighty God", (or "God is Mighty", both are possible translations) and "Eternals Father", the Christians deduce that the boy spoken about must have been God.
HOWEVER, a name is only that; a name. A name is not a description of the bearer of that name. An example: Buffalo Bill was not a buffalo. The indian chief Sitting Bull was not a bull.
Many times people in the Bible have in their name the word "God", or the name of God, but that doesn't mean that those people are God. For instance; in Exodus 6:23 is spoken about a man called "Elazar". That means "God is helper", or "Helping God". But that doesn't mean that that man was God.
Exodus 6:24; "Elkanah", that means "God acquired", or "acquiring God". II Samuel 22:19; "Elchanan"; "God is merciful", or "Merciful God". But these men were not God, just like the the child in Isaiah 9 wasn't God.
Apart from that, the Hebrew words "El gibor", in Christian Bibles translated with "Mighty God", can have a different meaning. "El" can mean "God", but it can also mean "judge", "leader", or "mighty man". In Exodus 4:16 God says to Moses that he will be of an elohiem for his brother Aharon. ("elohim" is the longer form of the word "el") This doesn't mean that Moses was a God for Aharon and Aharon started to worship his brother, it meant that Moses would be the leader of Aharon.
In Exodus 21:1-6 is spoken about a slave who after the normal period of servitude ended, doesn't want to leave his master. In that case the owner has to take him to court, where the slave will make a statement that he doesn't want to leave his master, and that he will serve his master until his death. The Hebrew text there says that his master must take him to the "elohim". There the NAS, ASV, ESV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, they all say that his master must take him "to God". However, his master doesn't take him for a ride to heaven, but takes him to the courthouse. Therefore the NIV, KJV, TNIV, and the NIRV, they all say that the master must take him to "the judges".
Even so in Isaiah 9 the word "El" does not necessarily mean "God". Therefore the text in Isaiah 9 is in no way a proof that the child spoken about was God.
"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
They didn't crucify him, the Romans did.
And they didn't crucify "the Lord", they crucified a rebellious carpenter.
Just doing the will of God.
"Serve Y-H-W-H! And if it seems evil to you to serve Y-H-W-H, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.
But as for me and my house, we will serve Y-H-W-H!”
Joshua 24:14-15
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
There is only ONE God who is one, and that is Y-H-W-H.
Besides Him there is no god.
Therefore the carpenter you worship cannot be God.
"And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am Y-H-W-H your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME."
Ex 20:1+2
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
Well, God clearly said that He wanted the sacrifices, so why would anybody think He doesn't want it?
"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever."
Micah 4:5
lifeisgood
New member
Correct.
They thought they were doing God's desire. Therefore, they believed they had God in their hearts; otherwise, they would not have desired to crucify their Messiah.
So am I.
Do you obey all or just some of Jesus' teachings?
Praise God that you do not willfully sin. Willfully being the operative word.
Yes, willfully being the operative word.
lifeisgood
New member
Sure they had God in their hearts, from their way of thinking, they crucified the Lord in the Name of the Lord. I am sorry if you do not understand.
You are giving Satan soooooooooooooooo much power.
Jesus' sacrifice had absolutely nothing to do with Satan.
When was the veil in the temple rent, at Jesus' death or at His resurrection?